BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 25 June (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Motion made, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Tuesday 25 June.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Baha’i

Naomi Long: What assessment he has made of the open letter presented by an inter-faith delegation to the Minister responsible for the middle east and north Africa, on 14 May 2013, calling for the release of the seven Baha’i leaders in prison in Iran.

Alistair Burt: I was proud to receive that letter from a large number of faith leaders in the United Kingdom. It is a powerful expression of support for the imprisoned Baha’i leaders in Iran. I hope that the concerns of those with faith will be heard anew in Tehran, and we continue to call for the release of the seven imprisoned Baha’i leaders.

Naomi Long: I thank the Minister for his comments and for receiving the letter and meeting us. On this day 30 years ago, 10 Baha’i women were hanged for refusing to abandon their faith. The continued incarceration of seven leaders is clearly of great importance to the Baha’i community, not just in Iran but around the world. What hope does the Minister have that the change in President may have an impact on the approach towards their persecution?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady not only for asking the question but for being present at the handing over of the letter. It remains the case that the human rights record in Iran is appalling. A lot of hope is being pinned on the possibility of change in Iran. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, it is rather too early to tell, but it has been reported that the new President talked at yesterday’s press conference about a more inclusive constitution. I am sure that we will wait to see what happens, rather than just judge on words. If there is any opportunity for the release of Baha’i leaders and for better treatment of the Baha’is and all other religious minorities in Iran, it would be warmly welcomed by the House.

Keith Vaz: There are 7 million Baha’is living all over the world, many thousands in the United Kingdom. Would it be possible to contact the faith and religious groups in this country, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, to see whether they could act as a bridge to the spiritual leader to discuss the release of these prisoners?

Alistair Burt: The excellent thing about the inter-faith letter that I received on 14 May is that it was signed by a collection of leaders from virtually all the faiths represented in the United Kingdom, and they made exactly that point—that spiritual leaders can speak to spiritual leaders. I have no doubt at all that those in the United Kingdom continue to urge religious tolerance throughout the world and they made that particular point in their letter.

Turkey

John Healey: What assessment he has made of the implications of the recent violence in Turkey for stability in the region.

Caroline Lucas: What reports he has received on the Turkish authorities’ response to the recent demonstrations in Taksim square.

David Lidington: We are following events in Turkey closely and the Foreign Secretary and I have spoken in the past few days to our Turkish counterparts. We very much hope that matters can be resolved peacefully. A stable, democratic and prosperous Turkey is important for regional stability. Turkey remains an important foreign policy partner and NATO ally, and we shall continue to support its continuing reform agenda and encourage Turkey to respect its obligations as defined in the European convention on human rights.

John Healey: The Minister’s words were subdued. Is he not shocked to see this increasingly modern, secular and economically successful country arresting young people for using Twitter, blocking trade union demonstrations with riot police and now threatening to use the army on the streets against its own citizens? Will he and the Foreign Secretary now publicly urge the Turkish Government to respect people’s basic rights and freedoms of assembly and expression?

David Lidington: It is important that all human rights, as set out in the European convention to which Turkey, like us, is a party, are fully respected. Some of the images from Istanbul and Ankara are certainly disturbing. As friends of Turkey, we hope to see those problems resolved peacefully. We noted the statements last week by the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey that the police had overreacted in some instances and an investigation into those actions was needed. We support all efforts to address the protesters’ genuine concerns through dialogue and consultation.

Caroline Lucas: Over the weekend, more than 100 civilians, including doctors and nurses treating the injured, were arrested and held in incommunicado detention. There have also been reports of beatings. In the light of that appalling situation, will the Minister not only state his hope, but call on the Turkish authorities to disclose the location of everyone who has been arrested and to release immediately medical professionals who are identified by the Turkish Medical Association? Will he also make a public statement condemning incommunicado detention, because we have not heard enough of the public outrage and it needs to be heard today?

David Lidington: We are obviously concerned about the reports of the arrest of lawyers and doctors who were treating injured protesters at the scene of the demonstrations. The freedoms of assembly, association and expression are important rights. It is fair to recognise that Turkey has carried through substantial judicial and political reforms in the past 20 years. It is a very different country from when the military ruled and the army were deployed on the streets at the first sign of a demonstration, but that does not detract from the fact that the basic freedoms and human rights that Turkey has signed up to need to be respected.

Richard Ottaway: Although any response to protest must be proportionate, does the Minister agree that this is not the Arab uprising? The Turkish Government have been elected three times, and on the last occasion with more than 50% of the vote. If the protesters do not like the Government, the answer lies in the ballot box, not in violence.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right that the Government of Turkey have been elected three times with a decisive majority of votes from the people of Turkey. The electoral remedy is, indeed, available. It is also right to expect any democratic Government to abide by the national constitutional rules and international standards on human rights to which the country adheres.

Emma Reynolds: Many people will be concerned about the generality of the Minister’s answers. Will he comment specifically on the recent reports that 38 young protesters in one city alone in Turkey have allegedly been arrested for comments made on Twitter? What representations has he made to the Turkish Government about upholding freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate? In particular, has he voiced concerns about the recent comments of the Turkish Interior Minister, who said that arrests would be initiated on the basis of protesters’ use of social media?

David Lidington: It is important that the Turkish Government, like any other democratic Government, abide by the rule of law and follow due process in respect of any action involving the police and the criminal-legal process. When talking to our Turkish counterparts, the Foreign Secretary and I certainly make clear the extent of the public concern in the United Kingdom. Those of us who have long been firm friends of Turkey and who want to see its European ambitions fulfilled see the process of judicial and political reform as an integral part of fulfilling those ambitions.

Chagos Islands

Jeremy Corbyn: What recent developments there have been in Government policy towards the Chagos islands; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Simmonds: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in December last year, we are taking stock of our policy on the British Indian Ocean Territory. We are engaged in a programme of consultation, including with the Chagos islanders.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister put a timetable on that consultation? He will recall that it was in the 1980s that the islanders were last able to live on the islands. Surely it is time to go beyond apologies, guarantee a right of return for the Chagos islanders to the islands, and allow limited fishing and ecological tourism on the islands, rather than having a no-take marine protection area, which is the Government’s current policy.

Mark Simmonds: As I said in my previous response, we are undertaking a review. There is no fixed timetable for the conclusion of that exercise. It is important that the review is thorough and that it consults as wide a range of partners as possible, both inside and outside Whitehall. That cannot be rushed. However, I hope to provide the House with an update on the process before the summer recess.

Henry Smith: I thank the Minister for his answer. May I seek assurances that consultations on the future of the Chagos islands will include representations from the Chagos islands community in this country, most of whom live in my constituency?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Significant credit should be paid to him for the assiduous way in which he represents the Chagossian community living primarily in his constituency. I confirm that we will be consulting his constituents and Chagossians who live in Manchester, as well as those who live in Mauritius and the Seychelles.

Thomas Docherty: As I understand it, the current arrangement with the US Administration expires at the end of 2014. Will the Minister assure the House that, notwithstanding the vital role of the base, the Government will make it clear to the US Administration that we will not simply roll over that deal?

Mark Simmonds: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, the existing agreement runs out in December 2016. The agreement set out in 1966 stipulated that it would automatically be rolled over unless one of the parties disputes it between 2014 and 2016. We welcome the US presence in Diego Garcia, which offers a shared strategic asset for both countries, but the hon. Gentleman has alighted on some of the main issues about resettlement—first is security, and the other serious issue is the potential impact on the Untied Kingdom taxpayer, which must be looked at thoroughly.

Middle East Peace Process

Grahame Morris: If he will consider the introduction of a ban on importing products from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

William Hague: During my recent visit to Israel, I raised our serious concerns about settlement activity at the highest levels, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We are working to ensure that settlement produce is correctly labelled so that consumers can make an informed choice. However, I do not believe that imposing a ban on settlement goods will promote peace.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply; I do not doubt his good intentions, but the time for rhetoric is passed. The latest expansion of illegal settlements is making a two-state solution impossible on the ground. Will he consider further steps and accelerate the labelling proposals he mentioned so that consumers can make a choice as to whether they support the Israeli system of apartheid?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that settlement activity is steadily making a two-state solution impossible. That is why time is running out for a two-state solution, which was the case I made to the Israeli and Palestinian leaders on my visit to Israel and the occupied territories. We are taking up with other European countries the commitment of the EU High Representative to prepare EU-wide guidelines on the labelling of settlement goods—that is the direction we are taking on that policy. Above all, the answer is to get Israelis and Palestinians back into negotiations so that we can settle all the issues, including the future of settlements and final status issues. That is what we are concentrating on now.

James Clappison: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about trying to get both sides into negotiations, because that is the way of resolving issues such as settlements and the legitimate concerns of both sides. What progress has he made in persuading President Abbas and the Palestinians to drop their pre-conditions for talks, which are an obstacle to resolving the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris)?

William Hague: We are encouraging both sides into negotiations. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), was also in
	Israel and the occupied territories a few days ago, and spoke to President Abbas, as I did. We encourage the Palestinians to enter negotiations without pre-conditions; we also encourage Israel to approach those negotiations in a way that will allow them to succeed. I pay tribute to Secretary Kerry for the energy he has put into the process in his four and a half months in office so far. He and I discussed the issue in detail in Washington last week.

Richard Burden: The Foreign Secretary has been clear over the years that settlements are not only undesirable but illegal. If the UK decided to impose a ban on goods from settlements, would it be within the law to do so?

William Hague: The question before us is not so much about what would be within the law as about what best promotes peace. We are at a critical stage—we are often at a critical stage in the middle east peace process, but this is one of those truly critical stages where the coming days or weeks will determine whether Israelis and Palestinians come back into negotiations on a two-state solution. That is the only way to truly resolve the settlement issue and create a viable and contiguous Palestinian state, and that is our objective.

Bob Russell: Israel, by its policies, is a racist, apartheid state. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that that all the products we are discussing are produced on land that is illegally occupied?

William Hague: Yes, that is true. I absolutely agree, as other hon. Members have said, that settlements on occupied land are illegal. That is why the previous Government and my predecessor proposed and introduced the guidelines on settlement produce. This Government have continued support for them and, as I have said, we are discussing how to apply them across the EU. I believe we are taking the policy forward in the appropriate way.

Israel: Children in Detention

Nia Griffith: Whether he has had discussions with the Government of Israel on their response to the recommendations of the report “Children in Military Custody”, published by a delegation of British lawyers in 2012.

Alistair Burt: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just said, I visited Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories last week, when I had the opportunity to raise the issue of the report with the relatively recently appointed Israeli Minister of Justice. We will continue to press on the matter of children in detention.

Nia Griffith: It is a year since the publication of the “Children in Military Custody” report and the lack of reform is lamentable. Will the Minister press the Israeli Government on specific deadlines on specific issues, such as the implementation of the use of audio-visual recordings in all interrogations? Specific deadlines on specific issues could help progress.

Alistair Burt: In addition to my efforts last week, I will this week see the Israeli Attorney-General, who is paying a visit to the UK. I absolutely intend to raise that issue with him. The Government support the report. Provisions in it will benefit not only children, but how Israel is seen. Currently, some 238 children are within the Israeli judicial system, including 137 in Israel. The issues are pressing, and I will continue to raise them very straightforwardly with the Attorney-General when he is here.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tragedy is that, unlike juvenile criminal trends in most societies, many crimes carried out by minors in the disputed territories are of a violent and ideological nature? What is his latest assessment of the Palestinian Authority’s sanction and glorification of violence?

Alistair Burt: The tragedy is that two groups of people have been separated for far too long, and the efforts that need to be made to bring them together have foundered constantly. The problem of children taking to the streets and throwing stones and the Israeli defence forces having to respond will not be settled until we have the overall settlement on which we are working so hard to support Secretary Kerry, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned a moment ago.

Geneva Conference on Syria

John Baron: What his policy is on the possible inclusion of Iran as a participant in the forthcoming Geneva conference on Syria.

William Hague: No decision has been made on participation. Our priority remains to see a diplomatic process in Geneva that succeeds in reaching a negotiated end to the conflict, but we will have to be prepared to do more to save lives and pressure the Assad regime to negotiate seriously if diplomatic efforts are to succeed.

John Baron: Politicians should leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of a diplomatic solution. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore understand widespread concern that we are not giving diplomacy the best chance if Iran, a key player in the region, is excluded? Will he do what he can to encourage its inclusion?

William Hague: It is of course important that the conference in Geneva brings together sufficient groups and powers to agree a sustainable settlement of the conflict in Syria, but it is also important to have the ability to start from common ground. That is what was agreed at Geneva last year—that a transitional Government should be created, with full Executive powers, formed from regime and opposition by mutual consent. We have seen no evidence that Iran agrees with that agreement, which we made with Russia and others. In the absence of such agreement, it is hard to believe that Iran would play a constructive role at the Geneva negotiation.

Peter Hain: I hope Iran is included, because it is a key player, but whether or not it is included, can the Foreign Secretary say to the House in absolutely crystal clear terms that, if the Government
	decide to send arms to Syria, there will be a vote—I choose my words precisely—on a substantive motion before that decision is executed? Within that, I define as arms British planes policing a no-fly zone and possibly bombing anti-aircraft installations of the Syrian Government, and training, which could be training on the ground. Will he confirm a quote in
	The Sunday Times 
	on Sunday:
	“One senior Tory source said…‘The bottom line is that we will avoid at all costs a vote as we don’t think we can win it’”?
	This is a cross-party matter.

William Hague: It is a cross-party matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made the position clear, so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman needs to look at “a senior Tory source”. There is no Tory more senior than the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Occasionally, one or two might think they are, but there are no Tories more senior than the Prime Minister and he has made it clear that the Government have a strong record of holding votes in the House of Commons on these issues when it is necessary to do so. We certainly would not want to pursue any aspect of our policy on this issue against the will of the House of Commons. That is neither feasible nor desirable, so of course we have made clear that there would be a vote. I have also made it clear that we would expect it to be before any such decision was put into action.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are deeply obliged to the Foreign Secretary, but we have quite a lot to get through and we need to be a bit sharper.

Julian Lewis: I would like to think that I heard the word “yes” in that answer, but I am afraid I did not. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the unholy alliance between Iran and the Assad regime, how does it help the interests of this country to change yet another Arab dictatorship into another Islamist state, complete with weapons of mass destruction for al-Qaeda to use against us?

William Hague: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that the change happening in Syria is not one that was activated here in the United Kingdom—it started in Syria. It came from the people of Syria themselves, as it has in many other countries, where many people want economic opportunity and political dignity for their own countries. The situation we face now is that the crisis is getting worse. We need a political solution and we will not get one if the more moderate and pragmatic parts of the Syrian opposition are exterminated over the coming months.

Gisela Stuart: I hope the Foreign Secretary can help simple folk like me to understand things a little bit better. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) asked a specific and precisely worded question on a substantive vote under a certain set of circumstances. Was his answer to that yes?

William Hague: I do not know many other ways of having votes in this place on a specific issue than having a motion that talks about that issue. I was expanding on the right hon. Gentleman’s question to try to cover all eventualities. Of course we have a vote on an issue of that kind in the House of Commons. [Interruption.]

Robert Walter: Iran and Russia have consistently supported the Assad regime. Given the recent reports that 4,000 republican guards are to be deployed to Syria, is it not even more important that Iran’s presence at the conference is taken seriously? They are part of the problem and therefore part of the solution.

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but it is possible to argue that in both directions. As I said a moment ago, it is important to have at Geneva sufficient groups and sufficient powers to be able to make a workable and sustainable settlement of the conflict in Syria, but there is a balance between that and including those powers or groups that would make a settlement to the conflict impossible. None of Iran’s actions to date on Syria has been in the interests of promoting a solution or political settlement.

Douglas Alexander: The Foreign Secretary has just reiterated the Government’s support for a Geneva II conference. Will he set out for the House whether he believes that the UK’s supplying arms to elements of the Syrian opposition would increase the likelihood of those talks taking place—or, indeed, succeeding—and how, if he and the Prime Minister decided to pursue that course of action, he would be able to provide assurances to the House on the likely end use of UK-supplied weapons?

William Hague: We have not taken any decision about that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. As he also knows, I have said in the House before that if we did so, it would be in certain circumstances: in conjunction with other countries, in carefully controlled circumstances and always in accordance with international law and our own national law. But we have taken no such decision to do so. We are clear that to save lives and promote a political solution it is necessary to give more support to the national coalition of the sort we have announced before in the House. That remains our position, and we believe it helps a political solution.

Syria

Margaret Ritchie: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

William Hague: The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire. More than 93,000 people have been killed and 6.8 million are in need of humanitarian assistance. That includes at least 4.25 million internally displaced people and 1.6 million refugees. We have committed £171 million to provide food, health care, water and shelter for refugees inside and outside Syria.

Margaret Ritchie: In view of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the overwhelming thrust of policy in Syria must concentrate on humanitarian measures, rather than on arming the rebels or military intervention?

William Hague: There are many aspects to the problems in Syria. I was explaining to the media yesterday that our biggest effort is on the humanitarian side. The United
	Kingdom is one of the biggest national donors to help with the humanitarian situation. We are working on a further substantial increase in our humanitarian assistance, because the UN has called for another $5.2 billion over the next six months. As we speak, the Prime Minister is seeking agreement among the countries of the G8 that the humanitarian situation should be one of our top priorities.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the urgency of the humanitarian problem is underlined by the fact that in the camps, particularly in Jordan, rape, violence and forced marriage are commonplace, which has an impact on the economic and political stability of Jordan itself? Can he satisfy the House that his Government—our Government—[Interruption.] Old habits die hard. Can he satisfy the House that our Government are doing everything in their power not only to contribute in the way he described, but to persuade other nations, particularly rich nations in the Gulf, to do so as well?

William Hague: Our Government, of whom my right hon. and learned Friend is a vigorous supporter at all times, are indeed doing that, not only through the financial assistance I have described, but by sending specific support and equipment to Jordan to help ensure people are safely taken to camps as quickly as possible. We have also sent to the Syrian border some of the experts I have assembled on preventing sexual violence in conflict, and we certainly vigorously encourage other nations to join in meeting the UN’s appeal for funds.

Ian Lucas: Last week, I visited the Domiz camp in Iraq, where 150,000 fleeing Syrians have been given refuge and are being well looked after by the Kurdistan regional government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees working together. Unfortunately, however, only 28% of Syrian aid is currently funded, and there is a shortfall this year of £3.8 billion as a result of people not meeting their obligations. Will the Foreign Secretary press the G8 at least for the members of the G8 to meet their obligations, so that lives and individuals on the ground can be helped?

William Hague: The G8 is going on now, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As I mentioned a moment ago, one of the priorities of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to agree at the G8 that the G8 together will supply a large share, a large slice of the new UN appeal for $5.2 billion. On my many visits to the middle east region, including the Gulf, of which there will be more shortly, I strongly encourage other nations to take part. The new appeal is several times bigger than the $1.5 billion appeal for the last six months, which shows that we are now dealing with the biggest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century so far.

Philip Hollobone: In Jordan there are large camps. Everybody can see them on our TV screens and see what is happening. In Lebanon there are proportionately a similar number of Syrian refugees, but they are not in camps and are dispersed among the towns and cities. Nevertheless, the problem is real. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Lebanon is not overlooked in any aid funding?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. I have visited centres for Syrian refugees in Beirut, where, as my hon. Friend rightly says, people are not in camps, although they are given vouchers, for instance, so that they can buy food locally. I pay tribute to the hospitality of the Lebanese people. The United Kingdom is, for instance, funding the construction of border observation posts for the Lebanese armed forces to try to assist the stability of the border in Lebanon.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Jonathan Lord: What progress has been made towards agreeing a transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the EU and the US; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: The Prime Minister, together with President Obama and European Commission President Barroso, last night formally announced the launch of negotiations at the G8. This was fitting, given the UK’s leading role in getting the TTIP under way. This is a once-in-a-generation prize: the biggest bilateral trade deal in history.

Jonathan Lord: An independent study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research has found that an ambitious EU-US free trade agreement could bring economic gains of £100 billion a year to countries in the EU. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do everything in his power to bring about a successful agreement?

William Hague: This is a top priority for the Government. Interestingly, not only would such a deal bring the benefits that my hon. Friend mentions to the EU, as well as similar benefits to the United States; it is also estimated to benefit the rest of the world, outside Europe and the United States, to the tune of £85 billion.

Iain McKenzie: As we have heard, the agreement is potentially the biggest trade deal in history. Has the Foreign Secretary made any assessment of the benefits to Scotland of remaining part of the UK?

William Hague: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. That is extremely tangential to the question on the Order Paper, but a short, one-sentence reply will suffice.

William Hague: The benefits to Scotland will be proportionate to the benefits to the UK and the EU, unless Scotland was so unwise as to leave both the UK and the EU at the same time.

Colombia

Jim Sheridan: What recent assessment he has made of progress on human rights in Colombia.

Hugo Swire: Much progress has been made under the presidency of Juan Manuel Santos, notably the launch of peace talks. Clearly long-term challenges remain. We will continue to work closely with the Colombian Government to help to overcome them.

Jim Sheridan: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the non-governmental organisation Justice for Colombia on bringing together joint representatives from this House to meet the FARC representatives in the peace talks in Cuba? Can he tell us what human rights discussions took place between the Prime Minister and President Santos earlier this month in London?

Hugo Swire: President Santos not only met the Prime Minister and discussed the peace process; he also met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me, and we discussed those issues as well. I will shortly go to Colombia. I offered a meeting on 2 July, before I go, to the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend, the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I hope to extend that invitation to his group, the parliamentary friends of Colombia, so that we can go through these things before I go to Bogota early next month.

Mark Pritchard: Is it not the case that under both President Uribe and now President Santos, human rights have greatly improved in Colombia? One of the great success stories is that kidnappings and murders are down, and we have seen a 90% reduction in FARC guerrilla activity, which means that Colombia can make progress.

Hugo Swire: Yes, and we are very supportive of that. I re-read our annual human rights report yesterday. Key progress is highlighted in that report—the peace talks, the creation of the national human rights system and the work of the national protection unit, which now protects more than 10,000 Colombians—so we think things are moving in the right direction.

Robert Flello: Given the latest murder by the Colombian army—of a 17-year-old boy—thereby continuing the so-called false positives, and the fact that President Santos has now legislated to allow military courts to deal with its human rights abuses, so continuing army impunity, will the Secretary of State accept that he was wrong to say that the Colombian army no longer carries out extra-judicial murders?

Hugo Swire: The Government have assured us that there will be no more impunity for servicemen, and I discussed this with both the vice defence Minister, Jorge Bedoya, during his visit here in March and subsequently with the constitutional court judge, Vargas Silva, who was here on 30 April. I will continue to discuss these matters. We are against impunity for the military, and we make our position on that very clear.

Bob Stewart: The Government of Colombia are making extensive efforts to counter the dreadful trade in narcotics. Will the Minister assure us that we will give that Government as much support for counter-narcotics as is possible?

Mr Speaker: With reference to human rights, which is what the question is about.

Hugo Swire: Indeed, and narcotics impinges on the human rights of people in Colombia and, unfortunately, of people here in the UK, Mr Speaker. Yes, we will give our full support—we are giving our full support—to the
	Government of Colombia. President Santos is a keen Anglophile, and we are very supportive as a Government of what he is doing in leading his country from the dark days of the past to a much brighter future.

US-UK Discussions

Hugh Bayley: What matters he has recently discussed with the US Secretary of State.

William Hague: I met Secretary Kerry in Washington last week. Our talks covered Syria, the middle east peace process, the G8 summit, Afghanistan and climate change.

Hugh Bayley: At the start of his first term, President Obama said that he would close Guantanamo Bay within a year. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us how close the prison now is to closure, what is being done in the interim to ensure the health and well-being of Guantanamo detainees, what steps the Prime Minister has taken to secure the return of Shaker Aamer and whether it will be discussed during the G8?

William Hague: The President has made a number of statements about Guantanamo Bay, including in the last few weeks reiterating his determination to close it. We welcome that. I have discussed with Secretary Kerry the position of the last remaining UK resident, Shaker Aamer, and expressed our wish to see him return to the UK. We will see after the G8 whether it has provided an opportunity for the Prime Minister to raise the issue with President Obama.

Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend stress the importance of engaging with Iran? Recent developments there must offer some hope, as this remains a major power in a region with so much destabilising it.

William Hague: Developments do offer some hope. We discussed the issue extensively yesterday on an urgent question. Positive statements were certainly made during the election campaign of Mr Rouhani, who has been elected as President of Iran. I am sure that the people of Iran will now look to him to deliver on those promises, and we will judge Iran by its actions over the coming months.

Angus Robertson: Within days of the UK and France pushing for the lifting of the Syrian arms embargo, the largest single contributing country to UN peacekeeping on the Golan heights announced the withdrawal of its forces. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his discussions with Secretary Kerry, he stressed the importance of the United Nations for humanitarian and security aspects in and around Syria and affirmed that he would do nothing to undermine it?

William Hague: The United Nations has an absolutely central role, and the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we believe in that and that we always make that case. Austria gave particular reasons, including recent
	trouble on the Golan heights, for its intended withdrawal, but we want to see that force continue there and be fully staffed and supported.

David Ruffley: Aside from airing the possibility that western countries might arm the Syrian opposition, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what steps Secretary Kerry would like to take to bring Syria, and perhaps even Iran, to the negotiating table?

William Hague: Secretary Kerry has been instrumental in trying to launch the “Geneva II”, as we might call it—a process of negotiation to come in Geneva between regime and opposition in Syria, supported by all of us. Work on that continues, and one thing the Prime Minister is discussing with other G8 leaders is our unity and determination together to bring about a transition in Syria through a conference in Geneva. I pay tribute again to Secretary Kerry’s efforts on this.

John Spellar: As we are witnessing the security handover to the Afghan authorities, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that we have been pressing him for some time to bring about greater involvement of the neighbouring powers—including Iran—in the maintaining of Afghanistan’s future stability and the securing of the gains that have been made, especially for women’s health and education? Has he made any progress on that during his discussions with Secretary Kerry?

William Hague: A great deal of progress has been made on it recently, over a period of several years. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, neighbouring countries, including Iran, have regular meetings with Afghanistan. Relations between Afghanistan and Iran are reasonably good, and we do nothing to stand in the way of those good relations. It is important for Afghanistan’s neighbours to co-operate with it on security, on counter-narcotics, and, of course, on the economic development of the country.

National Parliaments (EU)

Andrea Leadsom: What plans he has to negotiate an increase in the role of national Parliaments within the EU.

David Lidington: We believe that national Parliaments are the fundamental source of democratic legitimacy in the European Union, and we are working with EU partners and parliamentarians to find ways of strengthening Parliaments’ powers to hold to account those who make decisions in the EU.

Andrea Leadsom: A couple of weeks ago, at the Königswinter conference, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the concept of a red card that could stop future EU legislation that a group of member states found unattractive. Does he agree that the red card system, if implemented, should also apply to existing legislation, so that the European Union can be properly reformed?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend flagged up that proposal recently during her thought-provoking speech to the Hansard Society. It is an important, far-reaching and constructive idea which deserves serious consideration.

Mike Gapes: Can the Minister confirm that the Parliaments of countries that are applying the rules of the European Union in order to gain access to the single market, such as Norway and Switzerland, have absolutely no influence on decisions in the EU?

David Lidington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, Norwegian and Swiss leaders have consistently told me that they think the UK is in a better position to gets its own way in EU negotiations than they are.

Discrimination: LGBT

Sarah Champion: What steps the UK is taking with its international partners to prevent discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Mark Simmonds: The United Kingdom works on human rights issues through international organisations, as well as bilaterally though our embassies and high commissions. Tackling discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity is a UK priority. Our clear message is that human rights are universal, and should apply equally to all people.

Sarah Champion: Approximately three quarters of Commonwealth countries criminalise homosexuality. Will the Minister discuss the amendment of the Commonwealth charter to include LGBT equality, given the striking omission of discrimination on grounds of sexuality from the forms of discrimination to which the Commonwealth is rightly opposed?

Mark Simmonds: If the hon. Lady has time, she should look at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights and democracy report. It contains a section on LGBT rights, respect for which is an integral part of the Government’s wider international human rights programme. We lobby consistently to try to ensure—through our bilateral relations, and also through multilateral organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe and, indeed, the Commonwealth—that people respect human rights, irrespective of gender and sexual orientation.

Crispin Blunt: The freedom to be oneself is a pretty fundamental human right. Will my hon. Friend ensure that organisations such as the Kaleidoscope Trust—which has a rather distinguished president, and whose parliamentary friends group I chair—Human Rights Watch and the Human Dignity Trust are able to work with his officials in territories where homosexuality is criminalised, and to support those who are standing up for the rights of LGBT people there?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. Of course I shall be happy to ensure that the relevant and important non-governmental organisations to which he has referred, along with others, engage with officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is also right to draw attention to the significant challenges that exist in some countries, but I assure him and other Members that we lobby vociferously, not just
	in countries such as Uganda and Nigeria but in Russia and Iran, where there are particular problems that need to be dealt with to ensure that there is equality of rights.

Kerry McCarthy: I urge the Minister to prioritise talking to other Commonwealth countries about this issue in the run-up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. May I ask him specifically about Russia, however, where in the context of a wider crackdown on freedom of expression and human rights, the Duma has just passed a law introducing draconian penalties for propaganda for non-traditional sexual relations? Have the Government taken advantage of President Putin’s presence in the UK this week to push him on this issue and to urge him not to go down that path?

Mark Simmonds: As I said a moment ago, we consistently lobby—through bilateral relations and our embassy in Moscow, as well as through the multilateral organisations I referred to earlier, particularly the UN with its universal periodic review—to make sure that countries like Russia adhere to the international framework for human rights, especially as it relates to LGBT rights. I can give the hon. Lady an assurance that we will continue to lobby through both those two sets of organisations, bilaterally and multilaterally, to try to make sure that all people have equal access to human rights.

Topical Questions

Nick Brown: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: The Prime Minister will make a statement tomorrow on our G8 presidency. Not only have we secured the launch of negotiations for an EU-US trade deal, but we are also working on landmark agreements on tax and transparency.

Nick Brown: Will the Foreign Secretary update the House, from the latest information known to him, on the conduct of the Burmese army and its oppression of minority peoples in Burma? Has its conduct improved, and will he say something about the systematic use of sexual violence on those helpless minority peoples?

William Hague: We work hard with Burma on human rights, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), has been there quite recently. We have also started to establish military-to-military links so that we can have a dialogue with the Burmese military about these and other issues. There is still a lot of work to do in Burma on human rights, and we continue vigorously to take up issues such as the plight of the Rohingya people and continuing ethnic violence in some areas, but we are working with Burma to improve the situation.

Glyn Davies: Having a well-targeted network of embassies is fundamental to extending British influence and trade across the
	world. How many new embassies have opened, and how many embassies that were closed under the last Government have been reopened, since May 2010?

William Hague: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that so far we have opened six new posts and upgraded a further six posts, and over a five-year period, we will be opening up to 20 new embassies and consulates. That is vital in order for Britain to be well-connected in the world, and it is a sharp contrast from the withdrawal of British diplomacy from many areas under the last Government.

Mr Speaker: We always knew the Foreign Secretary was a brilliant man; now we know he is also psychic.

Douglas Alexander: The Foreign Secretary said in answer to an earlier question that he would judge President-elect Rouhani on his actions. What specific actions will he be seeking from the Iranian regime and the newly elected Iranian President himself, in order for them to demonstrate in the months ahead a renewed commitment to resolving the nuclear crisis by peaceful and diplomatic means?

William Hague: There are two main aspects to that. One is to meet the International Atomic Energy Agency’s transparency requirements, some of which I mentioned in detail when answering the urgent question in the House yesterday. That includes addressing the issue of the heavy water reactor at Arak and meeting the requirements for information across a wide range of matters that the IAEA has set out. The other thing is to respond constructively to the offer from the E3 plus 3 that has been on the table since February, and which would allow us to make a very significant start to defusing the tensions over the nuclear issue and resolving it. The new Administration in Iran will be judged on those two things.

John Baron: The BBC World Service is a trusted source of impartial news for hundreds of millions of listeners across the globe, yet the FCO is cutting its budget by about £2 million. Given that history suggests that soft power is far more effective at promoting democratic values than force of arms, will the Foreign Secretary reconsider this ill-judged and rather short-sighted decision?

William Hague: The cut I announced last week was three quarters of 1% of the World Service budget, having not passed on any of the reductions in departmental budgets for the past two years. That is much smaller than spending reductions across the rest of the public sector in the UK, and I believe that a well-run organisation can take a 0.75% change in its budget. Of course by transferring the funding of the World Service to the licence fee in future, we will remove this problem of the World Service being affected by departmental budgets at all.

William Bain: The recent Africa progress report reveals that the moving of resources by companies into lower-tax jurisdictions costs the continent £25 billion a year. Can the Foreign Secretary guarantee that any deal on tax avoidance reached at the G8 will benefit Africa?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman is right to signify the importance and potential benefit to Africa of the discussions taking place at the G8. He also should be aware of the very positive and speedy way in which the United Kingdom’s Crown dependencies and overseas territories engaged with this important agenda, particularly as it relates to the automatic exchange of tax information, signing up to the multilateral convention on tax matters and putting in place action plans for beneficial ownership, which could have a significant positive impact on African economic growth and development.

Gary Streeter: The Foreign Secretary was only 14 at the time of the last referendum on EU membership and therefore could not vote. So does he welcome the private Member’s Bill being introduced on 5 July that will give the British people an opportunity to vote on this important matter or does he share my concern that not all sides of the House are engaging fully in this important process?

William Hague: I was only 14, although I had a big influence on how my family voted even at that stage, in 1975. It is absolutely right that we put forward again the opportunity, in the next Parliament, for the people of this country to have their say in a referendum on the European Union. I note that the Opposition Whips have circulated guidance for Opposition Members saying that they are looking for suitable speakers so that the Chamber is not completely empty at the time, but I wonder whether that will make any difference, given the emptiness of their policy.

Tom Greatrex: The Foreign Office Ministers will, I hope, be aware of the widespread concerns and worrying allegations about the conduct of aspects of the general election that took place in Malaysia in May. Such concerns related to intimidation at polling places, phantom voters and incomplete electoral rolls. Given the importance of the relationship between the UK and Malaysia, are any of the Ministers able to inform the House as to whether they will be taking those issues up with the Malaysian Government?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that relations between the two countries are extremely important. Obviously, we have also seen those reports. I am going to Malaysia next week and I can confirm that I shall be looking into this at first hand.

Laura Sandys: Will the Foreign Secretary update us on the Government’s policy towards Tibet?

William Hague: The Prime Minister made clear our position in the House a few weeks ago: we recognise Tibet as part of China and we do not support Tibetan independence. We have well-established positions and dialogue on human rights, as the House well knows, but of course we also understand Chinese sensitivities and concerns about Tibet.

Chris Evans: Reverend Peter Cho of Tabernacle church, Newbridge in my constituency, has raised concerns this morning about nine North Korean defectors, including five children, who last month were forcibly repatriated by Laos and China. Does the Secretary of State share the concerns of Reverend Cho, the UN and other human rights organisations that these people could face false imprisonment and, potentially, execution?

Hugo Swire: We are extremely concerned about people being returned to North Korea—we have made our position clear—because we think they will possibly be subject to torture and certainly be subject to intimidation. We think that these people should be treated as refugees.

Stephen Mosley: Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on his meeting with the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister and, in particular, on whether any progress has been made in securing the removal of Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy?

William Hague: The removal of Mr Assange from the embassy would be easy to secure if he walked out. He will be arrested, in line with our law, if and when he does that. I had cordial talks yesterday with the Foreign Minister of Ecuador and explained again our legal obligations: we want a diplomatic solution, but it has to be within our law and we are legally obliged to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden. We did not make any breakthrough or substantive progress, but we have agreed that our officials will meet again to see how we can find agreement.

Meg Munn: What action is the Foreign Secretary taking to increase the proportion of posts in the senior management ranks of the FCO, including those of high commissioner and ambassador, that are held by women?

William Hague: I have, subject to the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Queen, appointed a higher proportion of women to those posts. I feel strongly about the subject and often discuss with the senior management of the FCO the need over the next few years to ensure that a higher proportion of senior positions, including senior ambassadorial positions, are held by women. I will continue the internal pressure over the coming months.

Martin Horwood: Will Ministers tell us how the balance of EU competences review is going and confirm that it has received strong representations urging the importance of Europol and the European arrest warrant in tackling cross-border crime, terrorism and human trafficking?

David Lidington: The balance of competences review is going well and I believe that we are on course to publish the first six reports arising from it before the summer recess. As my hon. Friend knows, the new calls for evidence include calls for evidence on various aspects of justice and home affairs and I am sure that his submissions, along with many others, will be warmly welcomed.

Frank Roy: Erdem Gunduz, the standing man of Taksim square, stood for eight hours in peaceful protest yesterday. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that he and others like him will be able to demonstrate peacefully without interference from Turkish authorities?

David Lidington: We certainly make it clear in all our conversations with the Government of Turkey that we look to Turkey to continue its progress in democratic and judicial reform and to respect all the human rights obligations into which it has entered.

Caroline Dinenage: It is now more than a year since Leading Seaman Timmy MacColl went missing in Dubai, leaving a young family behind in my Gosport constituency. I know that the Minister has taken a personal interest in the case, but will he assure me that he will continue to put pressure on the Dubai police to keep giving this matter the attention and resources it deserves?

Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. This case is extremely distressing for the family. I was in Dubai recently, where I met the chief of the Dubai police. We discussed the case and we are continuing, through our representatives there, to urge the authorities to do all they can to see what, if any, light they can shed on that sad disappearance.

William McCrea: The transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the EU and the US has been a part of the G8 discussions in the beautiful surroundings of Fermanagh in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of what his hopes are for a successful outcome from those negotiations and for how they might progress?

William Hague: Yes, indeed. I hope that what has been agreed in the splendid surroundings in Northern Ireland, which will have been much appreciated by the G8 leaders, will now be taken forward vigorously. It is vital to maintain momentum on the issue, to place as few obstacles in the path of the negotiations as possible and to build political support on both sides of the Atlantic. I did so when I visited the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Capitol hill last week.

David Ward: Earlier, the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed the Government’s opposition to the boycott of settlement goods. Would he be prepared to provide some moral leadership by saying that he will personally agree to boycott such goods?

William Hague: I am not in close control of the fresh produce purchased in the Hague household, since certain of my other duties interfere with that. While I am Foreign Secretary, I do not expect to have that onerous responsibility placed on me.

Toby Perkins: Many people who have seen the appalling scenes in Turkey on their television screens will have been dismayed by the rather meek response from the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) earlier. Will he give us a little bit more of a sense of the outrage that people are feeling around
	the world and confirm that he is putting real pressure on the Turkish Government to respect the right to peaceful protest?

David Lidington: In our dealings with the Turkish Government, we have to respect the fact that they are a democratically elected Government—they are not the kind of military regime that used to rule Turkey. At the same time, however, we have to say to our Turkish friends that they have entered into commitments to democratic reform, judicial reform and human rights, and that all their friends elsewhere in the world look forward to them continuing to deliver on that agenda.

Alun Cairns: Last week four men were convicted by the Turkish courts of the reckless killing of Cerys Potter. This is a landmark judgment. Does the Minister accept that it will have an
	impact only if the Turkish authorities insist on basic health and safety standards in such exercises as white water rafting?

David Lidington: I pay tribute to the tireless work that my hon. Friend has put into campaigning on behalf of his constituents. I spoke to the Turkish tourism Minister following my meeting earlier this year with my hon. Friend and his constituents, and I plan to be in contact with the Turkish Minister again in the wake of the court judgment so that we can offer the support and assistance that the Turks may wish to have from us in respect of learning some of the lessons from this tragic case.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but demand has exceeded supply.

Points of Order

Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the Foreign Secretary’s reply to my question earlier on British arms to Syria, may I seek your advice on how what is clearly a cross-party concern to have a vote on a substantive motion in the House prior to any action being authorised can be facilitated, certainly before the recess, which is barely a month away? Would it not be a disappointment if the House had to be brought back from the recess? Could an Opposition motion be tabled which could get cross-party support, including among the leading signatories, and be debated in Opposition time? Would that be in order?

Mr Speaker: There are a number of parliamentary opportunities potentially open to the right hon. Gentleman and others. First, there is the vehicle of the debates that take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. That would be one opportunity. Secondly, it is open to the Opposition to use an Opposition day and to proceed with the matter in that way, either with an exclusively Opposition-signed motion or a motion signed more widely. I must say I have the sense that the Government are hinting that they would not dream of executing a policy decision of the kind that is being considered without first seeking a debate in the House and a vote on a substantive motion. That would obviously be the democratic course. I think it is the democratic course on a substantive motion that the Government have in mind. I am not sure that there was any other idea ever in their mind, but I feel sure that if it was in their mind, it was speedily expunged as undemocratic and inappropriate.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can place on the record that the Foreign Secretary was nodding vigorously during your remarks?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has done that. He and others will take that as an explicit commitment by the Foreign Secretary that there will be no implementation of such a decision without the prior assent in the form of a vote on a substantive motion in this House of Commons. I think we are now clear. Happiness is now universal in the Chamber—well, almost universal.

Gisela Stuart: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we could complete that happiness. When the Foreign Secretary answered my earlier question, which was further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for
	Neath (Mr Hain), as he sat down he was heard by Members on the Opposition Benches to have audibly said, “Yes.” If we could record that in
	Hansard
	, that would be very helpful, even though it was said from a sedentary position.

Mr Speaker: I think I will command universal assent when I say that the Hansard writers are expert, professional public servants of unimpeachable integrity who would not be bettered in any part of the United Kingdom in any professional capacity. [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear.”] Good. We are agreed on that.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given you notice. As you are aware, I have been pursuing the matter of sex offences and police cautions over many months now, and on 23 April, in pursuit of that I tabled a question to the Justice Secretary, which unfortunately fell with prorogation. I then retabled it on 13 May. When by 4 June I had received no response, my office contacted the Ministry of Justice and was told that the question would be answered “shortly”. When there was still no answer by 13 June, my office again contacted the Ministry of Justice and was told that it was “awaiting clearance from special advisers.”
	There are two points to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first one is, and I hope you will agree, that the delay that I have experienced in getting an answer to the question is unacceptable. Secondly, is it acceptable that special advisers, whatever their responsibilities, can be used as a means of delaying response to a written parliamentary question? If you can satisfy me on those two points, joy will be unconfined.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer to his twofold question is yes and no. I agree that it is unacceptable that he should have had to have waited for as long as he has done for substantive answers to his question, and secondly, it is not acceptable that anyone should be involved in a process of effectively delaying ministerial answers to hon. or right hon. Members.
	The right hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that answers to parliamentary questions are not a matter for me directly, but I do deplore, in the most explicit terms, any failure to provide substantive answers in a timely manner. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Procedure Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), is monitoring departmental performance in this area. The right hon. Gentleman might wish to draw his particular unfortunate experience to the attention of the Committee. I hope that that is helpful and that the appetite for points of order has now been met.

Common Agricultural Policy

[Relevant documents: The First Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-I, Chapter 1; the First Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, Greening the Common Agricultural Policy, HC 170; and the Government response, HC 654, Session 2012-13.]

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15396/11, a draft Regulation establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, No. 15425/11, a draft Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), No. 15397/11, relating to a draft Regulation on establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), and No. 15426/11, a draft Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government’s continuing efforts to amend these proposals in order to secure better value for money for the taxpayer and establish a greener, simpler CAP that enables the development of an innovative, competitive and market-orientated farming industry and thriving rural communities.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate these important issues in the House today. It is particularly timely because next week the Secretary of State will be going to Luxembourg in the expectation of securing a deal on the common agricultural policy at the Agriculture Council. With CAP reform subject to co-decision for the first time, the negotiations between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission have been intensive during the last few months, and indeed are likely to be during the next few days as well. It is thanks to the sterling efforts of the current Irish EU presidency that a potential deal is now within reach.
	As many hon. Members will be well aware, the Government’s priority on CAP reform has been to negotiate a good deal for UK farmers, taxpayers and consumers, and that means working to deliver a greener, simpler CAP that continues to orientate itself to the market, increases the international competitiveness of EU agriculture, and increases our capacity to deliver environmental outcomes.

Jim Cunningham: Does the Minister agree that successive Governments have tried to reform the common agricultural policy and there has been very little progress, although in the past previous Conservative Governments have tried to make out to the public that they have actually made some progress when they have not?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is a long, hard business to reform the CAP. The sadness is that occasionally within negotiations some member states want to turn the clock back, and even to forgo the reforms that have already been accomplished, so I will not pretend anything other than that this is a long, hard process and the advantages and the movement forward that we gain are not always as far and as quick as we would wish them to be.
	We want to see an efficient and responsive agricultural sector not just across the EU, but globally, and the CAP should be central to helping us achieve that. It is therefore
	essential that the CAP continues to reform and to reduce reliance on damaging direct subsidies that do not offer good value for money or deliver the public goods we want. The UK has worked extremely hard to engage with like-minded member states throughout the ongoing negotiations to ensure that the CAP continues on the path of reform, but we know that other member states and elements in the European Parliament are determined to turn the clock back and reverse some of the hard-won reforms of MacSharry and Fischler. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
	I will touch on a few of the priority areas that will be the focus of our negotiating efforts over the next week. First, market intervention remains a prime concern. As we all know, the CAP has made great progress over the years in reducing reliance on expensive and trade-distorting measures that interfere with the market and helped to create the butter mountains and wine lakes of the past. I was therefore very disappointed when in March the European Parliament voted through amendments that would move EU agriculture away from market orientation. Those proposals would increase budget pressures for old-style market support. That is not an acceptable use of taxpayers’ money. It hits consumers twice; they pay for their food once through their taxes and again at the tills.
	The EU sugar regime, for example, constricts supply in the market and adds costs for British food and drink producers and ultimately for the consumer. The combined effect of EU beet quotas and high tariffs on cane imports means that the current EU regime has driven up the wholesale price of sugar by 35% and added 1% to the food bills of hard-pressed families. Members states had previously agreed to end the restrictive sugar beet production quotas by 2015, but there has been incredible pressure to unpick that agreement. In our compromise in March, we agreed a partial extension of sugar beet quotas to 2017. I am disappointed that Members of the European Parliament voted to extend the quotas further to 2020. That is unacceptable. The situation is compounded by the lack of a level playing field for sugar cane imports, something we are working to change. We need to remain fully committed to moving the CAP in the right direction towards greater market orientation. Nothing must be left to chance. Butter mountains and wine lakes must remain a thing of the past.
	I know that many hon. Members have an interest in the proposed greening of the CAP. The Government believe that the CAP should reward farmers for the public goods they deliver, such as environmental benefits and protecting and enhancing wildlife. Pillar two of the CAP is the best place to fund that, which is why at the European Council in February the Prime Minister secured the additional flexibility to be able to transfer up to 15% of our direct payments budget to fund our rural development and environmental programmes.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns of the National Farmers Union and a whole alliance of farming organisations in that regard, and not just in north Yorkshire. Bearing in mind that our farmers already commit to many greening policies through stewardship schemes, 15%, or even 11%, would be unacceptably high and would make our farmers uncompetitive.

David Heath: I am afraid that is an area where the National Farmers Union and the Government simply do not agree. I believe that we currently have extremely good higher level stewardship schemes within pillar two, and I want those to continue and to prosper. I want us to ensure that we can continue payments on some of the older schemes, where we have accrued benefit, which I do not want us to lose. I am absolutely clear that where we use the pillar two payments in the most effective way, we will be doing so to enhance the position of those who work the land and confer on it public goods. For instance, one of my priorities will be to see what we can do in upland areas, where people farm in less favourable conditions and where it might make all the difference, but I simply do not agree that the best way to distribute money is necessarily through pillar one.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister expand on that? Farmers have expressed their concern to me in recent weeks and months over the transfers to pillar two. How can more effective use be made of the arrangements so that those farmers are not put at a competitive disadvantage? What fine-tuning can be carried out? How can we get more bang for our buck in the pillar two funding?

David Heath: A simple answer—I appreciate that it might be considered a simplistic one—is that we target the funding better towards the places where it will have the most effect. We have a highly efficient and effective agriculture industry and we do not need to target funding at all sectors. We need to ensure that it reaches the places where it will have the greatest effect. As I have said, this is where we part company with the National Farmers Union, which would like us to maintain the maximum funding within pillar one. We believe, however, that pillar two is the most effective vehicle for benefiting environmental interests, which are important, and for directing support to the areas of this country’s agriculture that need it most.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister is absolutely right to place the emphasis on pillar two. The figure for voluntary modulation to which he referred was 15%, but can he confirm that the figure for voluntary modulation has previously been as high as 19%? Can he also expand on what the 15% figure is going to mean for farmers, and on the implications for the Treasury in this regard?

David Heath: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman as full an answer as he would wish. First, we have not yet agreed the deal, so we do not know whether that voluntary modulation figure will stand. Secondly, a lot will depend on the design of the schemes and on how we implement them at national level. We have been pushing the argument in Europe that, in relation to the devolved Administrations, we want as much flexibility and local determination as possible in the design of operation. We want to give Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the opportunity to use their own discretion on behalf of their own farming businesses, as they will know the best way of implementing the schemes in those countries. If we are successful in our objective of achieving that flexibility, as we have been so far, we will effectively have a devolved CAP.

William McCrea: Will the Minister acknowledge the need for regional flexibility to allow Northern Ireland to tailor any new policy to fit the needs of the local industry?

David Heath: Absolutely. That has been one of our key objectives during the negotiations, and we have worked closely with Ministers from the devolved Administrations in that process. On any objective assessment, the Secretary of State has been remarkably successful in getting those elements written into the scripts that have emerged from the Council. The difficulty now is that we need to reach agreement with the European Parliament, and we want to ensure that the elements survive that process.

James Paice: Surely the answer to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is no, voluntary modulation was not at 19%. It was 9%; the other 10% was compulsory modulation that applied to every member state.

Barry Gardiner: indicated assent.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman accepts my point. That arrangement created a level playing field across the whole of the EU. The reason that the NFU is concerned is that it is probably only English farmers who could lose 15%, thus making this an issue of competition.

David Heath: I do not accept the issue of competitiveness, but I entirely accept the figures that my right hon. Friend has cited. That is the correct position.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister said that only the devolved Administrations will be allowed to tailor their schemes to the needs of their own farmers, but that would be inherently unfair on the English farmer. I hope that he will agree that this is a wonderful opportunity to revisit some of the schemes, because some of the active upland farmers, who are often tenants, have been disadvantaged by the way in which the current schemes operate.

David Heath: I hope that I have not misled the House in any way on this. We will bring forward our own proposals that will apply to England. I was simply making the point that the devolved Administrations would not have to conform to an English model. They will be able to devise their own schemes that will work best for them.

William Cash: I am extremely interested in the Minister’s point about the United Kingdom having policies that are relevant to our own interests. In relation to the review of competences, will he tell us whether there is any intention to repatriate the common agricultural policy?

David Heath: That depends on how we define repatriation. We have been arguing strongly for increased flexibility at national and regional level for those countries that have devolved Administrations. The obvious examples are the United Kingdom and Belgium, both of which feel strongly about this matter. We need the option to define some of the terms and regulations that will be put in place, so that they match our forms of agriculture. There is already divergence within this country over the application of the CAP. For example, there are still historic payments in Scotland. In my personal view, there will eventually be a need for internal convergence on that issue, but it is for the Scots to decide on the rate
	of change and on whether that should happen sooner or later. I believe that it is a distorting element at the moment.
	The UK Government also argued, however, that we did not want a sudden, bumpy transition that would put the Scottish Government in difficulties while they were trying to achieve their objectives. So, although we want internal convergence, we have asked for as smooth a transition as possible because that will be in the interests of the devolved Administrations. There is already a considerable degree of variation in the way in which the current scheme works. We are trying to ensure that that continues and is enhanced under the new rules.

Roger Williams: The Minister has put on record his intention to help hill and upland farmers in England. At the moment, there are three rates for the single payment, relating to moorlands, severely disadvantaged areas and lowlands. Would it not be advantageous to upland farmers if we had only moorland and lowland payments?

David Heath: As always, my hon. Friend is very well informed on these subjects. He is right, and that is something that we will be looking at in relation to the implementation phase.

Wayne David: Reference has been made to Scotland in regard to the transition. Would the situation that the Minister has described apply also to Wales and England?

David Heath: Wales will have the same capacity as Scotland to apply its own CAP rules within the overall rules, although the rules that will apply in Wales will not be quite the same because Wales will not be starting from the same position as Scotland. There is already an increased degree of convergence in Wales. The situation is not exactly the same, but that freedom is in the script for the settlement that we have agreed so far.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Heath: I should perhaps continue with my speech for a few minutes, rather than take any more interventions.
	We do not believe that the original proposal for greening direct payments offered the same value for money that our existing agri-environmental schemes do, and we have been working hard to move the negotiations in a positive direction. Any greening must be meaningful, administratively simple and deliver real environmental benefits for the taxpayers’ money that is spent on it. Value for taxpayers’ money is vital, which is why I am also opposed to proposals under which it would be possible to get paid twice for carrying out the same greening measures under both pillar one and pillar two.
	No decisions have been taken on how greening will be implemented but, importantly, the position we agreed at the March Council included, as I have said, increased flexibility for member states and regions to deliver greening through a national scheme, if they so wish.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. Will he respond to the concern of many farmers that the flexibility that the UK Government have understandably negotiated for our
	farmers could be interpreted very differently by farmers in other member nations and that it could, in fact, be interpreted to the disadvantage of our own farmers?

David Heath: Obviously, we try as far as possible to eliminate potential disadvantages. I cannot say that we will be successful across the board, because this is a negotiated settlement. Where possible we try to make sure that we all play to common ground rules, but with local interpretation. It is clear, for instance, that lowland dairy farming in this country is very different from growing olives on a Greek island. Different criteria apply and we want to make sure that we recognise the differences as well as the common basis.

Jim Shannon: I appreciate the Minister’s understanding of this complex issue. Many farmers who have had to leave their comfort zone and consider doing other things will also be impacted by the CAP changes, so will help be made available to those who wish to diversify?

David Heath: I am grateful for that question. A lot will depend on the local determination in Northern Ireland for the options under pillar two, which provides the capacity for supporting diversification. The relevant Northern Ireland Minister will have to decide the extent to which voluntary modulation applies and whether the pillar two schemes will be devised to support diversification. The capacity is there and the decision on whether it will happen or not will be a local one.

William McCrea: The Minister is being very gracious in the number of interventions he is willing to take. The UK has received the lowest EU share of the rural development budget, which will impact on schemes such as agri-environmental schemes, the less favoured area compensatory allowance and farm modernisation. Will the Government balance the reduction in rural development with funds from, for instance, pillar one?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman asks a basic question about voluntary modulation. We have already indicated that we will probably wish to see significant modulation from pillar one to pillar two in England. Obviously, other structural funds could be used for those purposes, if desired. On rural development, there is a need to utilise every possible source of funding to improve the rural economy. We are not simply talking about what is available through CAP funding to support agricultural and rural development.

James Paice: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: Of course.

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I gently point out that this is a 90-minute debate? The Minister’s speech is a matter of considerable importance and we listen to it with interest and respect, but no fewer than nine hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, each and every one of whom is present and expectant. I know that Members will wish to tailor their contributions accordingly. If Sir James wishes, nevertheless, to persist—doubtless he will—I ask him to do so with great brevity.

James Paice: I will be very brief, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful if the Minister put on the record the Government’s position on voluntary modulation but the other way around. Moving on from his argument about taking 15% from pillar one to pillar two, do the Government strongly oppose those in other countries who wish to have the flexibility to move money from pillar two to pillar one?

David Heath: We do not believe that is a sensible position. We are not likely to succeed in preventing it, but we will look very carefully at where it may be applied and whether it will distort the agricultural market overall.
	I take to heart what you have said, Mr Speaker. I was trying to allow Members to ask legitimate questions, but let me now make progress. Simplification must be at the heart of all our CAP reforms. That is one of the Government’s priorities. Whatever the outcome, we must have a CAP that is straightforward for farmers to follow and simple for our national Administrations to implement.
	We have made progress at home, through the farming regulation taskforce, in looking at unnecessary red tape and reducing burdens on farmers. It is important that we do not undo that good work with complicated changes in the CAP. I firmly believe that we should be getting out of farmers’ hair and freeing them from the burden of unnecessary red tape. We have already made significant progress. Since 2011, we have identified £13 of savings to farmers for every £1 of compliance costs added.
	I know, however, that there is more to be done and I am determined to take further steps towards a more risk-based approach to inspections that will allow farmers who consistently achieve high standards to earn recognition and receive less frequent visits. We must work together to achieve this. It is important that European rules do not knock us off our course. Having made such good progress at home, I do not want CAP reform to bring additional burdens.
	On regionalisation, which I have already mentioned, amendments clarifying the regional implementation of the CAP are very important. A reformed CAP must deliver benefits for farmers, taxpayers and consumers throughout the UK, and to ensure that, we must have the clarity to implement the CAP in line with our devolution arrangements. Achieving this is a priority for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and we will push hard to get it next week.
	I cannot conclude without mentioning the CAP budget. As hon. Members will know, the Prime Minister negotiated a 13% cut in the overall CAP budget at the European Council in February. The smaller EU budget negotiated by the Prime Minister is appropriate in the current economic climate, and the reduction to the CAP budget made an important contribution in that regard. This reduction in EU expenditure will be to the benefit of all UK taxpayers.
	The allocation of the CAP budget between member states has not yet been finalised, but it would appear that the UK’s share of the CAP will remain roughly equal to its existing share. How the CAP budget will be divided between the UK regions and nations is still to be agreed. Discussions between my officials and their counterparts in the devolved Administrations are now under way and I understand that a number of models for the distribution of pillar one and pillar two funds are being developed.
	I hope that the motion captures the UK’s vision for a future CAP. I look forward to the debate and hope that the House will support the Government’s continuing efforts to secure a greener, simpler CAP that delivers better value for the taxpayer and enables the development of an innovative, competitive and market-oriented farming industry and thriving rural communities.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We welcome this opportunity to scrutinise progress towards reform of the common agricultural policy. I was going to say to the Minister that it seems like we debated the CAP only yesterday, but then I recalled that we did so in Committee.
	The Secretary of State and the Minister may regard it as a measure of success that they have not faced criticism from one side in their negotiations, but they have in fact faced criticism from all sides, including farmers, farmers unions, Ministers in devolved Governments—particularly, but not exclusively, the Scottish Government—and environmental groups. Perhaps the Secretary of State is attempting a divide and conquer strategy—splitting the competing interests in order to diminish their effectiveness and leaving him free to argue his own way in European Union negotiations—but such a strategy has real dangers that can only diminish the outcomes for the UK. Being surrounded by attacks on their negotiating stance leaves Ministers looking weak and vulnerable. I am sure that the Commission, the President and the European parliamentarians involved in decision making will have noticed that isolation at home and will continue to utilise that weakness in negotiations.
	That is just on the home front. Likewise, in Brussels and Strasbourg, the days of the UK being at the vanguard of progressive, like-minded nations on CAP reform are, as in so many other areas of policy, a fond but distant memory. The Government are trying to lead and to build on the collaborative approach to previous negotiations, but they have alienated far too many former friends.
	No one can have failed to notice the intervention today in The Daily Telegraph—my daily reading—of the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who draws an analogy between the Government’s approach to Europe and the heroic but doomed charge of the Light Brigade. The Secretary of State, like his Prime Minister, is boldly and valiantly galloping into the field of diplomatic battle: he and the Prime Minister are the Lord Raglan and Lord Cardigan of CAP reform and European relations, charging headlong into the cannons of Brussels and being scythed down, but nevertheless riding heroically into Eurosceptic mythology, mayhem and madness.
	The Government have done their best to alienate potential diplomatic partners with their swivel-eyed lunacy—not my words, Mr Speaker—on the EU. That cannot but affect the negotiations on CAP reform and, as important, lessen the outcomes for UK farmers and consumers and for sustainable production here, in other nations and in the developing world.

Wayne David: On that fundamental point, does my hon. Friend agree that the idea that the CAP can be reformed in a big bang is nonsense? Reform must be predicated on sensible negotiations. The Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe,
	says that there cannot be sensible negotiations if the British Government are confused about their position in Europe and send the message that they are essentially Eurosceptic.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of this area, is right. It is as though the Government are playing with one hand behind their back. I have great sympathy for the Minister, because although he has great knowledge and wants to work in the best interests of UK farming, his colleagues are not making it easy for him.

David Heath: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words. I am interested to know what is the position of the Labour party today. Does it support or oppose the budget reduction? Would it have failed to argue for the budget reduction, or does it agree that the Prime Minister had a success in those negotiations?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister ought to go back and look at the voting record, because the Labour party voted collectively on that matter.
	The thrust of the Minister’s speech was about a more competitive farming industry. We do have a strong farming industry. The question is whether he and his Eurosceptic colleagues can carry that forward through the negotiations. I commend the work of UKRep officials in trying to get the very best outcome from a misguided ministerial approach to the EU. They have stuck their fingers in diplomatic dams, while Ministers have been digging away the foundations. I suspect that the Minister has been somewhat dismayed and has done his best among a very bad lot, but it has been a model exercise in how not to win friends and how not to influence people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has a vision of the perfect negotiating strategy that his side might have. Might that include giving away half our rebate to get a fundamental reform of the agricultural policy? Will he remind me how successful that was?

Huw Irranca-Davies: There, once again, speaks the historic Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party. We have always had the clear position that negotiations on the CAP, the common fisheries policy, on which I negotiated, and on Europe more generally are best served by honesty, transparency, frankness and collaboration. I must make some progress, given your dictate, Mr Speaker.
	The Government’s approach both in the UK and in the EU has been wanting. Where does that leave us at this critical stage of the negotiations? At EU level, we are taking not two steps forward and one back, but one step forward and three back. The Secretary of State put it well when he wrote to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in February:
	“overall I am disappointed in the outcome of the vote in Agriculture Committee”.
	So are we. He continued:
	“The amendments turn back the clock in terms of achieving good value for money from rural development, especially agri-environment, and do nothing to continue orientating European agriculture to the market.”
	We agree, Secretary of State, we agree. He continued:
	“There is a significant watering down of the greening proposals”.
	It is all getting a bit gloomy, but there is worse:
	“I would emphasise concern on the outcome of the vote on the single CMO where the compromises put a halt to, and even reverse, the direction of reform that CAP has been on”.
	Yes, the direction of reform and the progress towards reform that had been achieved, including by Labour Secretaries of State working effectively, collaboratively and intelligently with like-minded progressive member states, are being reversed. How times have changed; how progress has stalled and even been reversed in some areas.
	I remind the Secretary of State and his Ministers that his criticism of the lack of progress must be laid fairly and squarely at his own door. It is not enough to bemoan a lack of progress, or even a regression into old-style CAP production support, when that has happened under his leadership of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, his Prime Minister’s leadership of the country and his party’s little-Englander, banner-waving, terrified-of-UKIP style of leadership. They have contributed to our current position. “Speak softly but carry a big stick,” has been replaced by, “Shout loudly and antagonise the neighbours.” Despite all that, we will continue here and in Brussels and Strasbourg to support the Government when they try to do the right thing. We just want them to try harder and negotiate cleverer. That is the backdrop to where we are now.
	Many of the detailed contributions today will rightly be focused on farming and technical in character. Before I put some questions to the Minister, it is worth reiterating that Labour strongly believes that farming goes hand-in-hand with sound, sustainable farming practices. In addition to delivering food security and affordability, this CAP reform should not shy away from its broader sustainability remit. Profitable farm businesses are based on sustainable farming practices such as protecting and enhancing soil quality and the water environment; conserving special and priority species and habitats, landscape features and archaeological sites; minimising the carbon footprint of farming; promoting access to the countryside, high animal welfare standards and links to the wider rural economy and communities, and much more. That, by the way, is why pillar two and rural development cannot be overlooked while we strive to ensure the productivity and competitiveness of farming.
	Collectively, the Government and their agencies have worked with farmers, landowners and non-governmental organisations throughout the UK over many years to deliver food security for this country; to produce affordable food for the consumer; to protect what we, visitors and tourists love aesthetically in our landscape and countryside, which boosts the wider rural economy; to conserve our habitats, wildlife and biodiversity; to enhance the wider public goods in management of our ecosystem and biodiversity; and, in all that, to adapt to the challenges of climate change. On top of that, farmers have been asked to work with the Government as the CAP moves towards a more market-oriented system, with less reliance on payments for production and more transparent use of public money for public goods.
	The head of the National Farmers Union, Peter Kendall, is not alone among the farming unions in his concern that farmers are being left high and dry, confused and
	condemned by a Government who are as out of touch with farmers as they are with the EU negotiations. He states:
	“Instead of delivering a genuine policy framework that embraces and fosters a modern, market orientated, competitive farming sector, free of unnecessary red tape, I fear we will be left with a complex mish-mash of competing and contradictory policy components which will leave farmers facing more bureaucracy and more distortions in the market than ever before.”
	I ask the DEFRA ministerial team, who are leading our negotiations, how that came to pass on their watch.
	How likely is it that the ongoing dispute over co-financing and the movement of funds between pillars one and two could scupper progress at the June negotiations? Equally important, if there is a delay, are there specific improvements that the Minister will seek in the time gained? Is there any possibility of using that time to reverse the undoubtedly backwards steps towards more old-style market support? Will he say whether the farming unions’ argument is correct that, because of the differential application of the transfer of funds between pillars one and two among nations, their members will unavoidably be placed at a competitive disadvantage? If so, will the Minister share with the House his analysis of how that is likely to affect profitability and competitiveness in each sector, as well as UK farming as a whole against our European neighbours? How will the Government ensure the level playing field to which the Minister referred? Our farmers are not afraid of competition, but it must be fair and open.
	We have considered competitive disadvantage across the EU, but how will the Minister deal with the same question across constituent parts of the UK? For example, Scottish Ministers have made it clear that they want maximum flexibility to extend their support—including to sectors such as livestock—well beyond the levels of support that may be given to English or Welsh farmers. What is the Minister’s thinking on that and how will he respond to requests from Scottish Ministers for complete, up-front devolution of funding to the Executive? Will he argue against further use of coupled payments in devolved Administrations, or accept that that is part and parcel of devolution? If the latter, how will he explain that to farmers in England?
	How will the Secretary of State respond to the view of the Country Land and Business Association, Tenant Farmers Association and farming unions in England that the introduction of greening elements reduces the need for such a substantial transfer of funds from pillar one to pillar two for environmental measures? Does the Minister believe that such transfers are essential to maintain environmental benefits and not substitutable for pillar one measures, or that they are additional and will extend the future scope of environmental measures?
	Farmers want clarity on DEFRA’s position on opt-outs from greening proposals. Does the Minister intend that our farmers should be able to opt out of the specific greening measures proposed, forgoing just the 30% proportion of the new payment but without any further penalty; or will he hold them to complying with the whole package, with no opt-out other than a full one? I trust he can explain his position today.
	It comes to something when the president of the NFU remarks candidly that “negotiators have come back from Europe with less than we started with.”
	That is hardly a ringing endorsement of Ministers’ batting for British food, farming and rural communities. With the Secretary of State as Lord Raglan in this assault, UKRep and DEFRA officials are playing an heroic role as negotiators, unquestioningly negotiating through the valley of diplomatic death he has made for them. There is confusion and misdirection aplenty as UK interests get cut down again and again by the well positioned, well dug-in cannonades of other European nations. The French commander, Marshal Pierre Bosquet, exclaimed of the futile but spectacular charge of the Light Brigade:
	“C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.”
	It is magnificent, but it is not war. Russian officers offered less praise and more regret, saying of the headlong charge, “C’est la folie.” It is madness.
	Labour will continue to engage directly with farmers, farming unions, environmental organisations, MEPs, colleagues in devolved Administrations and Governments, and all who want to see CAP reform deliver for food security and affordability, environmental and wider public benefits, and rural communities. We will support the Government to get the best deal, despite a cack-handed approach to negotiations thus far. I wish the Minister good luck. Where he gets it right he will have our support, but there is a long way to go.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The House will next be addressed by the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. After her speech there will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. We will hear from the Chair of the Committee with, I hope, suitable brevity.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on giving the House the opportunity to discuss the Committee’s two previous reports on this matter, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I congratulate the Minister on the position he has reached in the negotiations, and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) for his sterling work in commencing proceedings. I will stick to English, Mr Speaker, tempting as it is to break into French, Danish or Spanish, as I think your strictures on timing would preclude that. I spent a number of months working on the first ever co-decision procedure on road transport as a Member of the European Parliament, and although I am delighted that the democratic arm of the European Parliament is participating in the negotiations, that obviously adds an extra dimension to those negotiations.
	I thank hon. colleagues from all sides for the work they have done with me in looking to the next round of common agricultural policy reforms after 2013, and I will dwell for a moment on the background to our current position. I represent a deeply rural constituency—having moved from the Vale of York to Thirsk, Malton and Filey—and a greater upland area than I represented previously, as well as lowland areas. The backdrop of the wettest autumn, with substantial flooding in my constituency and many other parts of the UK, followed by the coldest spring has had a huge impact on the
	harvest. We are expecting a smaller harvest and I understand that less milk was produced. Most worrying is that the harvest is expected to be down by potentially 30%, and as I understand it, for the first time in 11 years the United Kingdom will be a net importer of wheat.
	Against that backdrop of depressed farming incomes, and the implications for food security, I would like to press the Minister on certain issues, particularly the greening of the common agricultural policy. As a number of hon. Members have said, UK farmers already green to a much greater extent and at some cost to themselves. In particular, I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to the position of tenant farmers across this country—not just those in the uplands of northern England—who seem to have a unique position in the European Union. The Committee’s report “Farming in the uplands” stated that the Committee is conscious that the position of tenant farmers is unique to UK agriculture, and that the impact of any reform on that group should not be overlooked by either the Commission or DEFRA. We concluded that tenants—and indeed commoners, many of whom I represent—might be disadvantaged in accessing agri-environment schemes.
	The concerns of tenant farmers about some other reform proposals are wider and reflected by the Tenant Farmers Association. Those concerns include that farmers might be disadvantaged by the proposed entitlement scheme, that only those who made a valid claim on at least one hectare of land in 2011 under the existing single payment scheme will be eligible for direct payments under the new regime, and that some landlords may use that to capitalise inappropriately on changes brought under existing tenancies in order to bank land ahead of any new regime. On the other side, the CLA has said that it is not aware of such things, but I hope the Minister will keep the matter under review.
	Tenant farmers have also raised concerns about the active farmer proposals on which the Minister might like to update the House. Wildlife trusts, and others, have said that the proposals are potentially unworkable and catastrophic for the management of the land. The costs of administering some of the present schemes for tenant farmers are prohibitively high, with lawyers being retained and up to 30% of the agreement used just to administer the scheme. This debate is therefore a useful opportunity to review the position of tenant farmers under the CAP.
	In response to our debate on interventions and a potential transfer from pillar one to pillar two, will the Minister state whether he proposes that the measure will be subject under pillar two to co-financing? I know it is the view of the NFU and others that it should be, but the question that the House must address, and the Minister answer, is whether the Treasury will be prepared to co-finance. We have a comprehensive spending review next week. Will there be money if there is a 13% reduction in the CAP budget?
	That is another argument in favour of the status quo. I am slightly arguing against myself, because Filey and other parts of the Thirsk and Malton constituency receive rural development funds through the LEADER programme, which is all to the good—obviously, I am here to help Filey to receive more in that regard. I hope that the Minister will address that. He touched on the 13% reduction in the CAP, but we have let to learn what the reduction in DEFRA’s budget will be.
	I have discussed the position of tenants, the weather conditions and the drop in farm incomes, which in turn has food security implications, which I hope the Minister will address, as well as updating us on active farming.
	I shall say a few words about ensuring that there is no discrimination against the UK farmer. I understand that Scotland currently receives 16% of the UK pot of money, yet produces less than 12% of the UK’s agricultural output. We need to be aware of that and restore the balance between Scotland and England, particularly for the border regions of Northumbria, Yorkshire and County Durham, which are affected by the imbalance. Decoupled direct support plays a pivotal role, but we should not put further pressure on farmers in England, and there should be no further modulation. Any increase in voluntary modulation from 9% to 15% would be resisted by farmers. Many of the farming organisations have lobbied vigorously in that regard.
	The Minister and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire, argued that there should be no distortions and no negative impact on competitiveness in any switch from direct payments to rural development. I therefore hope that the Minister can conclude that there will be no extra burdens on English farmers from the negotiations.
	The proof of the success of CAP reform for the UK farmer will be in the way it is implemented in England. I am conscious of the roles that DEFRA and the Minister play—they both negotiate on behalf of the UK but have specific roles in relation to English farmers. I make a plea from the heart on behalf of those I represent and the wider farming community that our farmers are rewarded for their toil. The House needs to ensure that it sends the message that we intend to continue to be self-sufficient in food and remain a major exporter. A drift towards being dependent on imports is a drift in the wrong direction.
	All power to the Minister’s elbow. We will continue to monitor developments extremely closely. The Committee wants to establish a greener, simpler CAP, with emphasis on the simpler, and a CAP that is competitive and provides for farmers and rural communities.

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to speak after the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
	Food security delivered by a viable farming industry and the sustainable management of our natural resources must be compatible. It would appear that the CAP does its best to ensure that they are not. Greening is a lie. The proposals are not greening proposals. Modifications that are being made in the proposals to pillar one can be said to be greening in nature, but the proposals do not constitute the greening of the CAP as a whole. Only 13% of the funding under pillar one goes to specific greening measures. In many cases, good farmers are doing those things anyway. The real objection is that money is being used for subsidies around Europe instead of being used to encourage farmers to improve their practices and run better businesses. That is the tragedy of the CAP’s current structure. The CAP budget is €57.7 billion, which is around 40% of the EU budget. It is staggering that the money is being used predominantly
	to reward productivity and to increase product, and not to incentivise better businesses and improve the wider environment.
	I compliment the Minister—I do not always do so—for the way in which he has handled the debate. He not only took a lot of questions, but sought to engage the House. There is broad consensus in the House on the position that the UK Government would like to get to in Europe. The tragedy is that the 27 different countries have very different farming industries. Many of them have a vested interest in having subsidies prop up their ineffective farming industries.
	The key issues are on the use of funds. The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) was right to correct what I said earlier—10% modulation was compulsory and 9% was voluntary in the past. That meant a total of 19% modulation as opposed to the 15% voluntary modulation that the Government propose. The difficulty is that the 15% is 15% of less, and the 19% was 19% of more. The will have a dramatic impact on advancing the environmental stewardship schemes and the green elements of our budget will be dramatic.
	I take on board the points made by the Chair of the Committee and the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire about how the proposal will impact on farming businesses in the UK. This is not a zero-sum game, but if we put the money into the schemes that hon. Members would ideally like—the greening schemes that will improve our environment—we will, to an extent, disadvantage our farmers, because they compete against their counterparts in Europe with less subsidy. It is as simple as that. We might all believe that that subsidy is wrong and should not exist—subsidies should not exist to prop up failing industries—but it exists none the less, which is a disadvantage to our farmers.

William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Gardiner: I do not have time, I am afraid.
	The Chair of the Committee was absolutely right to put the central question: what is the Treasury going to do? Will it allow enough funds to DEFRA to ensure that we can put the money that is needed into the environmental schemes to support the natural environment White Paper it produced last year and to our support farmers, or will DEFRA budgets be cut in such a way that our farmers and the environment suffer? That is the question.

James Paice: Time will curtail what I say in the debate—I will not say all I would have liked to say, which will please most of my hon. Friends—but the House will remember that I did most of the negotiations in their early days on behalf of the UK Government. I do not recognise any of the situations that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) described in his somewhat flowery rhetoric.
	All hon. Members know that, whatever the outcome of the trilogue discussions, this is a wasted opportunity. For the very first time since the introduction of the CAP, the negotiations take place against a background in which the days of surpluses and dealing with over-production are behind us. We now look to a future of
	what Sir John Beddington called the perfect storm of increasing demand and a decline in the rate of improvement in productivity. This was therefore an opportunity to restructure the agriculture industry across Europe and equip it to meet that challenge. Only last week, the OECD produced a report stating:
	“Changing fundamentals have transformed agricultural markets. These changes appear to be here to stay and will shape the evolution of agricultural markets over the medium term.”
	It went on:
	“Instead, with energy prices high and rising and production growth declining across the board, strong demand for food, feed, fibre and industrial uses of agricultural products is leading to structurally higher prices”.
	I could not have put it better myself, although I did put the case in a similar manner in the early negotiations. This was the opportunity and background against which we could start to wean farmers off direct support, an objective that I think is shared across the House. Unfortunately, those views fell on stony ground, particularly with the Commission, which was determined to refuse to accept the opportunity and challenge, preferring to embed direct payments by greening pillar one. As the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, it is a very pale shade of green. We ended up with a set of proposals that were much more complicated, and far from the simplification that the commissioner had proposed and said he was trying to introduce.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated the multi-annual financial framework settlement, which was, overall, an excellent settlement for the UK. The MFF saw a reduction in the overall EU budget and a reduction in the CAP budget, which, as the then Minister, I had proclaimed. Many agriculture Ministers around the table wanted more to be spent, yet their own Finance Ministers were singing a different tune. That could not be said of the UK Government—we stuck to the same tune. The issue was bedevilled by the Treasury’s attitude to the rebate, not that there is anything wrong with the rebate fundamentally—I strongly support it. However, the Treasury would rather have its 70p out of the rebate than allow us to claim £1 from the CAP, and that has caused immense difficulties ever since. The MFF also saw the absurdity of France and Italy, in particular, getting what can only be described as substantial, handsome bungs of an extra €1 billion to €1.5 billion.
	Enough has been said about the 15% issue, but we have to emphasise that this is a single market and our farmers have to compete across Europe. I cannot say that I speak for our farmers, but I think that most would accept whatever happened to the single farm payment as long as it happened to all farmers across Europe. They are unhappy with any proposition that affects England, but not their competitors.
	Greening, as has been said, should have been done in pillar two. It is important that we understand that management of ecological focus areas is more important than mere area. The transition to a flat rate needs to be achieved within the seven-year programme. It is indefensible still to be paying farmers in other parts of the UK on the basis of what they did in 2001. The rural development funding, on which there was some discussion during the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), must include measures to help farmers to become more competitive and innovative, and not just on the environmental front.
	This vital industry is part of our food supply chain and needs fair competition. I am afraid that the measure will not provide it.

Margaret Ritchie: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy.
	I represent a rural constituency in Northern Ireland where the active farmer is prominent, and there is a need to emphasise the role of the active farmer in single farm payments. Farmers have had to withstand difficult weather conditions in the past 18 months. A combination of wet weather last summer and one of the coldest springs have had an impact on agricultural production. Farmers and farming organisations in Northern Ireland, particularly those in my constituency, are looking forward to a fair wind in the CAP reform negotiations to ensure the resilience of farm practice and the business of farming in Northern Ireland.
	I have had several discussions with the Minister, both in separate meetings and as a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Central to the success of the growth of the agri-food industry as the bedrock of the economy is a good outcome from the CAP negotiations that will underpin our industry and farm production at all levels; make provision for new entrants; acknowledge the position of the active farmer in terms of payments; and, above all, ensure a stable income for farmers and for those who derive their livelihood from the farm base. This is a long-term political issue that will shape farming and agriculture not only in the UK, but in Ireland too.

William McCrea: Does the hon. Lady agree that the reforms should support production, reduce red tape, and ensure that farmers receive an adequate return from the marketplace?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree that farmers need to receive a fair income for the work they undertake, notwithstanding difficult weather conditions, soil fertility or other matters.
	We must use all the levers at our disposal, including those in the EU, to achieve the best possible outcome for our farmers and our industry. Only last weekend there were some suggestions that farmers in Northern Ireland would be left at a financial disadvantage as a result of the ongoing Government negotiations. I seek assurances from the Minister that the business resilience and capacity of farms in Northern Ireland will be protected in whatever outcomes emerge from the CAP. I have spoken to the Minister’s opposite number in the Republic of Ireland, who is heading up the negotiations, and he has said that farming in Ireland, both north and south, is similar. We are looking for similar outcomes.
	I am aware that some farmers involved in full-time farming inherited their farms from their fathers, but in some instances they have not inherited entitlements. What can be done in the current negotiations, and in further discussions at UK level and at devolved level, to secure a position for those farmers who have no entitlements because they did not apply for them back in 2005?
	Those are the two principal issues I wanted to raise. I wish the Minister a fair wind in the negotiations. As we enter their final stages next week, the bottom line is to ensure a good outcome for agricultural communities and farm enterprises.

Roger Williams: I draw the attention of Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I omitted to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

James Paice: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I too apologise for forgetting to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

Lindsay Hoyle: Is there anybody else while we are on the record? If not, I call Roger Williams.

Roger Williams: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad that my contribution has caused so much interest in the Chamber.
	The shadow Minister was rather fierce in his criticism of the Minister. Only yesterday, a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs came to the House to make a statement on the common fisheries policy. That was always seen to be intractable, yet the outcome seemed to have the support of the whole Chamber. Indeed, we hope that the CAP negotiations will meet with the same success.
	It has been said that little progress has been made in reforming the CAP—the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), who is no longer in his place, said so at the beginning of the debate—but I must remind everybody that 25 years ago CAP expenditure amounted to 75% of EU funding, whereas it now amounts to just over 40%. In that time, the amount spent by the average UK family on food has decreased from 25% of disposable income to about 15%, although sadly that trend is moving in the opposite direction because of the increases in commodity prices. Back in the 1980s, the CAP depended on market support and intervention through export subsidies and import tariffs, which were really trade-distorting implements and very unfair on developing countries. Things moved on, however, and in 1993 the MacSharry proposals introduced direct payments that were not so trade distorting, and in 2003, the Fischler proposals decoupled support, which was another step forward.
	Why do we still need a CAP? It was first introduced to ensure that people working in agriculture and the countryside had incomes comparable to those in more urban and industrial occupations. Sadly, it has been unsuccessful in doing that, and incomes in the countryside are still less than in towns. Many farming businesses in this country would be making no profit at all, if it were not for direct payments.

Jonathan Edwards: How concerned is the hon. Gentleman, therefore, about the drive towards a referendum on the British
	state’s membership of the EU based on renegotiated terms, including the repatriation of the CAP and convergence funding? How concerned is he about the impact that that would have on the industry in Wales?

Roger Williams: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Farmers Union of Wales has made it clear that is sees EU membership as fundamental to a successful Welsh agricultural sector.
	We need resilience in our farming communities and businesses. As has been pointed out, farming businesses across the country have experienced poor conditions in the past two years. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee pointed out that for two years now the UK has been a net importer of cereals, whereas we used to be a net exporter. We need resilience in our farming businesses, therefore, if they are to survive from one difficult period to another period in which they can rebuild their resources and capital. We will experience great difficulties with food security over the coming years. With the world population now reaching 7 billion and probably reaching 9 billion by 2050, the demand for food will increase, and it is thought that northern Europe, particularly its maritime areas, might be well placed after climate change to maintain its agricultural production. We should be looking to the CAP to ensure that.
	I ask the Minister to address a number of issues that have already been raised. The first is co-financing of voluntary modulation. The UK farming community is concerned about voluntary modulation, because it would put it at a competitive disadvantage against other countries that compete with us on food production. Co-financing, if possible, could mitigate some of the problems perceived by British agriculture. Secondly, the greening proposals should be as simple and easy to follow as possible. The last thing we want are complex proposals leading to penalties being applied to individual farmers or DEFRA. I was on the EFRA Committee when the single farm payment was first introduced. The Rural Payments Agency made a terrible mess of delivering those payments and, as a result, a lot of DEFRA money had to be returned to the EU, rather than being spent on supporting our agricultural sector, so simplicity is important. Some large-scale arable and horticultural businesses would be willing to forgo the greening element—30% of the single farm payment—in order to maintain their focus on commercial activity, so what proposals does the Minister have for using those elements not taken up by businesses?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are four speakers and 16 minutes left.

Mary Glindon: Last year, in its first report of the Session under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the EFRA Committee stated that DEFRA had
	“to put the UK’s case that the CAP should support both the agricultural sector and provide environmental protection”
	and do so by engaging with reliable allies in the EU and by having the resources to put the case effectively and persuasively, so it was sad to read this week that figures from Brussels showed that the Government had not so far succeeded and had failed to protect pillar two funding.
	The National Farmers Union claims that the UK will now be allocated the lowest share of funds of all member states on a per-hectare basis, meaning significant reductions compared with the current budget. It also states that in the first year of the new programme the UK’s allocation of budget will be cut by 16% and that this figure will rise to 27% in the final year, meaning that by 2020 UK farmers will see less money coming back to the UK than they contributed to the pot through the compulsory EU modulation transfers this year. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that other countries, including France, Italy and Ireland, have all managed to get a more successful deal so far.
	The former agriculture Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), echoed the concern that the Minister’s arguments will disadvantage English farmers, who will not be given a level playing field on which to compete. The Opposition want a level playing field and no advantage for our farmers.

Bill Wiggin: I think the hon. Lady means that she does not want any disadvantage for our farmers. I hope she will take this opportunity to put the record straight.

Mary Glindon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. I did not realise I had said that. I clearly meant that we did not want any disadvantage.
	How can the Minister guarantee that UK farming will continue to deliver environmental and other public benefits with severe cuts to its pillar two funding? By failing to protect our farmers, the Government are putting at risk our food security, future environmental benefits, conservation, animal welfare standards and the successful promotion of access to the countryside. The Government’s current CAP negotiations are letting down not just our farmers and rural communities, but the whole country. They have to be much more effective and persuasive on our behalf.

Nia Griffith: Very briefly, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although I can confirm that I am not in receipt of any European funds at the moment.
	Quite clearly this debate will have to be curtailed. The key principles set out in 2011 were high sounding and were certainly things that we would support—for instance, better targeted income support, greening measures, support for young farmers, measures to stimulate the rural economy and simpler, more efficient CAP funding. We certainly want to see those things, but it is the transition that worries me most. Because of how we did things in Wales under the last set of changes—we kept a stronger historical element than in England—we have a bigger change to make. I pay tribute to Alun Davies, the Welsh Government Minister, who has had a considerable conversation with farmers in Wales. The Welsh Government have stated that they would like a much longer transition period—ideally 10 years rather than five, but if that is
	not possible, at least seven—to ensure that farmers do not go out of business because of sudden, cliff-edge changes.
	That is important, because when a farmer goes out of business, it is not just a catastrophe for that farmer and his or her family and a change in their way of life; it also has a detrimental effect on the rural economy, food production and our food security. Moreover, it is incredibly difficult to re-start. We all know from when we have talked about things such as foot and mouth how difficult it is to re-stock, but to re-start altogether—to go into farming, build up expertise again and build up generations of breeding to get the best animals possible—is extremely difficult these days and takes a long time, so we do not want a sudden, mass exodus. We want a cushioned transition to ensure that we do not have casualties.
	The Farmers Union of Wales is absolutely right to say that the current Euroscepticism is extremely worrying. Just as we do not want to see farmers thrown out of business because of an ill-thought-out transition, we do not want them to have trouble when they go to the bank, under the shadow of our possible departure from the EU and a sudden drop in their income. We do not want farmers to have to fight for funds to invest in our food production. We do not want them suddenly finding themselves unable to encourage their sons and daughters into farming because no one can see a future in it or because they are so worried about the changes in income that might ensue if we pulled out of the EU. I therefore hope that Government Members will be able to influence some of their colleagues who are making these unhelpful noises and will ensure that Britain is at the heart of the negotiations in Europe so that we get a good deal for Britain, a smooth transition and the best possible help for our farmers in future.

Kelvin Hopkins: I wrote my first paper on the CAP some 33 years ago. I suggested at that time that either it should be abolished or Britain should withdraw from it. I have not changed my view, even though the CAP is very different from how it was then, although it is still essentially ill designed and inefficient, and a bit of a bureaucratic monster. I was supported at that time by the Consumers Association. Having a purely urban constituency, I represent consumers rather than farmers, although I absolutely support farmers, too.
	Agriculture is very different in all the member states, and in some cases the difference is quite extreme. It would be better if member states managed their own agriculture and did not rely on a supranational regime imposed by the EU. It would be better for those countries and everyone else if that happened. If we must have transfers between member states, we should run the scheme as a fiscal transfer, so that the rich pay in and the poor draw out, but not try to manipulate agriculture in the way that happens at the moment.
	The report from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests:
	“A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate,”
	and that
	“The CAP is complex and burdensome.”
	I agree. Some of these points do not necessarily apply to the whole of the CAP, but they seem to fit in with the case for returning agriculture to member states. Much of
	what we have heard in today’s debate seems implicitly, if not explicitly, to support that case as well. Each member state ought to decide what it produces, how much of each product it should produce, whether subsidies are appropriate, what should be subsidised and, indeed, what that member state should import. Those things should be left to those countries.
	In Britain, we very wisely intensified our agriculture as a result of being an island and being threatened in the second world war. We developed an efficient agriculture sector that is still with us today, even though it seems that we are currently importing wheat. We want to continue to have a strong agriculture sector in terms of production for strategic reasons. We do not want to become beholden to other countries to feed ourselves.
	Last week I had the pleasure of visiting Lithuania with other members of the European Scrutiny Committee. I found to my surprise that 30% of Lithuania’s agricultural land is not being used for production. That was not the case before Lithuania joined the EU and the CAP. Strangely, for a small country that used to be mainly an agricultural nation, Lithuania has now become a net importer of food, which is all due to the distorting effects, apparently, of the CAP. Even in the poorer countries, things are not going well under the CAP regime. Surely Lithuania would be able to produce agricultural products very cheaply and sell to countries that want to import them, but it is not doing that and is now a net importer of food, which is nonsense.
	If we want to redistribute wealth and income between European nations—there is a case for doing that—it should be above board and done by means of fiscal transfers. A key factor of any renegotiation of our relationship with the EU should be getting out of the common fisheries policy, getting out of the CAP and avoiding all contact with single currencies.

Eilidh Whiteford: I am disappointed that we have such a short amount of time to debate these issues. We are talking about complex, extensive regulations that have significant implications for my constituents and everyone else who farms or works in rural industries or lives in a rural community, not just in Scotland but throughout the UK.
	The Minister did an admirable job of setting out the structural flaws of the CAP, but he was a bit less forthcoming in presenting an alternative to it for the 60% of farmers who would not have a viable farm business were it not for the support they receive from the CAP. It is important to remember that the CAP is not only about market support; it is also about land stewardship, food security and sustaining resilient rural communities. I think we are all agreed that the CAP is a profoundly flawed system, but we have to be pragmatic about where we are in the negotiations and how we defend our rural communities and get the best possible deal for our farmers.
	I will try to rattle through some of the issues in what is a short time frame, but I will be unable to say everything that I had hoped to say. I am pleased that there will be more flexibility for greening measures. I also think that the proposed definition of “eligible pasture”, which would include non-herbaceous grazing—in other words, heather—will be of significant benefit to
	upland farmers. However, I would still like more flexibility, so that people can qualify for greening measures through a number of options. I hope the Government will seek to resolve outstanding issues in the negotiations next week.
	Another welcome step is the definition of an “active farmer”, which should help to tackle the long-standing problem of “slipper farmers”, whereby some people have received large sums of public money with little accountability or public benefit. I hope that will also form part of the final agreement. The flip side of the “slipper farmer” problem is that not nearly enough support was given to new entrants in the previous CAP. It is important that new entrants have a level playing field in entitlements with established farmers. Under the proposals, they should be eligible for an initial grant of entitlements in the first year of the new scheme, so long as they can show that they have been actively farming. New entrants should also be able to receive support from the national reserve.
	The issue of the proposed cap on basic payments to individuals has been controversial in some quarters, but I personally think it is a progressive measure. A small number of large farm businesses receive levels of direct payments that are totally unjustifiable. We have to be transparent and accountable in how we use public money. It is only right that the redistributed surplus should be made available for more beneficial forms of rural development. I am pleased that the Commission proposes to increase CAP transparency by publishing the details of CAP beneficiaries and the money they have received.
	Another controversial issue has been the use of coupled support, which I wanted to say more about. I know that progress has been made, particularly on the different views that exist across the UK about what is needed in certain circumstances. All I would say is that the beef sector is critical to the economy of north-east Scotland. It anchors hundreds of jobs in the rural economy and gives a welcome boost to exports, which is important. I have raised the issue of the compliance regime many times with Ministers over the last couple of years. I am glad that there is a more proportionate set of proposals on the table, which means that farmers will not be penalised for small oversights or administrative errors.
	However, the big issue is the overall budget. In the context of austerity, we all understand that the overall pot is smaller, but the UK has negotiated itself the lowest share of the CAP budget of any EU member state. On average, member states get €72 a hectare, whereas the figure for the UK has fallen to €20. I do not think farmers want to be subsidised, but they do want to be on a level playing field and they want to be recompensed for their efforts to comply with European regulation.
	I think we went into the CAP reform negotiations with a very strong case for a bigger share of the CAP budget for Scotland, but that is not what has come out. Compared with farmers in neighbouring countries—and, indeed, farmers in other countries and parts of the UK—Scottish farmers continue to get a very raw deal, even though many are stewarding land in environmentally responsible ways, providing a basis for a much bigger
	food and drink export industry. I do not think it is right for farmers in Scotland to get significantly lower payments than their counterparts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Nor do I think it right that those farming comparable land in Ireland receive €70 a hectare, in Finland €158 a hectare and in the Czech Republic €83 a hectare.
	We need basic fairness in the system, and we just do not have it. Under pillar one, Scotland’s rate is so low that it means that the whole UK external convergence mechanism will benefit the UK by about €60 million. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that can come to Scotland. I hope that while we have a CAP system, we will continue to fight for the best deal for our farmers. I hope that Ministers will do that.

David Heath: I have limited time to reply to a very interesting debate, including to the rather ungenerous comments of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I always know that the more flowery his language, the more he secretly agrees with the Government. When he resorts to Alfred, Lord Tennyson, I know that I have total agreement across the Dispatch Box.
	Some important points were raised. One was about the opt-out for greening measures. Yes, there is in the current proposals a penalty for opting out, but we are seeking to remove it if we possibly can, so that the penalty will be the loss of income from not applying the greening measures.
	Several Members—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and many others—talked about co-financing measures. It is our view and it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating position in the budget discussions that these arrangements will not require co-financing. It is obviously always possible for the Treasury to put more money into the pot, but I have to say that I do not see the prospects for that as extraordinarily high at the moment.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned farmers without entitlement. We are continuing to negotiate on that, because we see—
	One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).
	Question agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15396/11, a draft Regulation establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, No. 15425/11, a draft Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), No. 15397/11, relating to a draft Regulation on establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), and No. 15426/11, a draft Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government’s continuing efforts to amend these proposals in order to secure better value for money for the taxpayer and establish a greener, simpler CAP that enables the development of an innovative, competitive and market-orientated farming industry and thriving rural communities.

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

[Relevant documents: 26th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxvi, Chapter 5; 28th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxviii, Chapter 1; 34th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxxiv, Chapter 1; 38th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxxvii, Chapter 2; 40th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxxix, Chapter 2; 4th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-iv, Chapter 1.]

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Edward Miliband.

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16988/1/12, a Commission Communication on a Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU: Launching a European debate, an Un-numbered European Document dated 5 December 2012, a Report from the President of the European Council: Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union, European Union Documents No. 15390/12, a draft Council Decision authorising enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax, and No. 6442/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Council Directive implementing enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax; observes that the European Scrutiny Committee has reported on these documents and concluded that they raise questions relating to parliamentary sovereignty and primacy as well as fiscal and monetary issues; notes that the European Commission Communication states that ‘Interparliamentary co-operation as such does not, however, ensure democratic legitimacy for EU decisions. That requires a parliamentary assembly representatively composed in which votes can be taken. The European Parliament, and only it, is that assembly for the EU and hence for the euro’, and that the report from the President of the European Council concludes that ‘further integration of policy making and a greater pooling of competences at the European level should first and foremost be accompanied with a commensurate involvement of the European Parliament in the integrated frameworks for a genuine EMU’; further notes that the proposals for the Financial Transaction Tax have been challenged by the Government in the European Court of Justice; notes that recent European Treaties and protocols have emphasised the role of national parliaments throughout the European Union as the foundation of democratic legitimacy and accountability; and believes that this role is the pivot upon which democracy in the United Kingdom must be based on behalf of the voters in every constituency.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these important issues and thank the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending them for debate. I shall focus on the financial transaction tax before turning to the matter of economic and monetary union. As many hon. Members, and certainly members of the European Scrutiny Committee, will know, the Government have applied to the European Court of Justice for the annulment of the Council decision authorising an FTT under the enhanced co-operation mechanism. I am pleased to be able to set out our concerns about the initiative.
	Many Members will know that we have been here before, in 2011, when the European Commission proposed a wide-ranging financial transaction tax that would have applied across the entire European Union. Just like the current proposal, that tax would have applied to all trades, market participants and financial instruments;
	it would have applied to Government bonds, corporate bonds, equities, derivatives and other financing instruments, and to long-term and short-term transactions. Just like the current proposal, too, that tax would have affected the entire financial system, reducing returns to pension funds and savers, increasing companies’ and Governments’ financing costs and reducing European competitiveness at a time when the EU, frankly, needed competitiveness and growth. It might have been conceived as a way of raising revenue from a small number of people in the financial industry, but it would in fact have been paid by savers and by companies. The Commission itself forecast an impact—a negative impact, I need hardly say—on EU-wide gross domestic product of 1.76%.
	The Chancellor made it clear that we would not accept the measure—certainly not at a time when the EU was trying to grow and attract business. He said the UK would have no part in it, and partly as a result, the proposal was dropped. Sadly, however, it was not dead, and this January, under a procedure known as “enhanced co-operation”, 11 member states chose to resurrect it. We believe that member states should be free to set their own tax policies, and if they choose to co-ordinate their tax policies, that, too, is their right. Although we believed and continue to believe that the proposed FTT is a bad idea, it is of course open to member states to pursue it—provided it is lawful, complies with the EU treaty and respects the rights and competences of those member states that choose not to participate.

Bill Esterson: I am grateful to the Minister for apparently making the argument for international co-operation in order to overcome the concerns that he has raised. President Obama has made the point that Wall street was responsible for the financial crisis, so Wall street had a responsibility to solve the problem. Does not the same apply here, provided that there is an attempt at international co-operation?

Greg Clark: I will come on to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I would point out that President Obama and his Treasury Secretary are deeply concerned about the progress of this financial transaction tax, which does not meet any of the in-principle ambitions that people have had for some time. It is a cause of a great alarm among those who believe in free trade around the world.
	The proposal under the enhanced co-operation procedure is substantially modelled on the 2011 version. It contains a feature known as the “establishment rule”, under which a UK financial institution would be deemed to be established in the FTT area for the purpose of the tax by virtue of the mere fact that its trading counterparty is headquartered in a country participating in the tax. So in practice, a UK pension fund purchasing a UK Government bond from a UK branch of a German bank would be obliged to pay the tax, and it would pay the tax not to the Exchequer in this country, as would have been the case if we had signed up to the FTT, but to an overseas authority. Likewise, a UK company with significant Treasury operations would potentially be in scope of the FTT when its counterparty happened to be headquartered in the FTT area.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: What obligation would the British Government be under either to enforce or to collect this tax if the FTT were adopted as proposed?

Greg Clark: That goes to the heart of our concern, because under the mechanism set out, we would be under such an obligation, which we consider to be a breach of the protections we enjoy, in particular not to have to incur costs when the benefits do not flow to a non-participating member state. That is precisely one of our objections.

Bernard Jenkin: Does the proposal not expose the beguiling attraction of allowing enhanced co-operation as a gesture of good will to our European partners, when in fact it is a trap enabling them to exercise powers through qualified majority voting, without our participation, which then creates obligations in relation to our own financial transactions, even though they might be taking place outside the EU? My right hon. Friend expresses support for co-operation between free, sovereign states in their tax affairs, but that is not what we are talking about here, because enhanced co-operation is likely to result in obligations that are enforceable in European Community law, even though we have not had a chance to vote on them.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is precisely why we are challenging the legitimacy of the proposal. The enhanced co-operation procedure is available to member states provided it is legal and compliant with the treaty, and our view is that it is certainly not. In particular, the extra-territorial effects—exactly what my hon. Friend is concerned about—are contrary to article 327 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, as it fails to respect the competences, rights and obligations of the non-participating member states. Furthermore, the decision to proceed with the FTT has extra-territorial effects for which there is simply no justification in customary international law. The Select Committee has been prominent in its scrutiny of that, and no doubt its Chair will have something to say about it.
	We should consider the economic effects of the tax as well as the legal issues. What we are discussing is obviously very important to the economy of the United Kingdom, where 2 million people are employed in financial and related professional services. That sector has created a trade surplus for the country at a time when I think all nations should be trying to increase their trade, and its activities are highly integrated with those in other EU countries. Our best estimate is that 30% of over-the-counter derivatives trading in London involves a counterparty in a proposed FTT zone country; similarly, about 30% of investors in UK gilts are located overseas, which means that the FTT is even likely to affect UK Government funding costs.
	However, it is not only the financial sector that would be affected. The European Association of Corporate Treasurers, which represents those who manage companies' finances throughout Europe, has said, very explicitly, that the FTT
	“will fall on companies in the real economy, and compound the negative effects of the financial crisis.”
	In this country, the CBI agrees.

Alison Seabeck: What would be the implications of the UK’s rejection of the FTT? Would the Government raise the bank levy rate for what I believe would be the sixth or seventh time?

Greg Clark: As the hon. Lady helpfully points out, we, unlike many other European countries, have a bank levy. The levy is targeted to raise £2.5 billion a year, but it will raise more than that this year, because we said we would increase it to ensure that it raised the amount it was targeted to raise. It is rather higher than the French and German levies.
	The CBI has said that the FTT proposal “discourages important business activities” and
	“undermines the ability of the financial sector to promote economic recovery”.
	The European fund managers association, which is responsible for the welfare of millions of pensioners throughout Europe, has described the FTT—again, very explicitly—as a tax on savers, which will threaten the operation of capital markets and have a damaging impact. I am interested to note that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) appears to be sanguine about the effects on savers. I should have thought that the views of pensioners and others with an interest in a prosperous retirement would concern us all.

Christopher Leslie: I am not entirely clear about the Government’s policy. I think that, once upon a time, the Chancellor said that he was in favour of the principle of a financial transaction tax. Is that no longer the case?

Greg Clark: In fact, we already have a financial transaction tax. It is called stamp duty, and it has existed for a long time.
	Let me say something about the opinions of markets outside the European Union. Representatives of other jurisdictions are appalled by the plans, particularly our major trading partners. In the United States, the Investment Company Institute says that the tax would “'crash across borders”, and that
	“All investors would be hit.”
	The US Government also have serious misgivings: the Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, has said that, despite objections from financial and non-financial trade associations and Government officials in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea and other countries regarding the global reach and negative impact of the proposal, their concerns remain unanswered.[Official Report, 20 June 2013, Vol. 564, c. 5MC.]

Luciana Berger: The Financial Secretary mentioned stamp duty. Stamp duty has an extra-territorial application, which he used as a reason for not introducing a financial transaction tax. Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), may I ask why, following a G20 meeting in Pittsburgh back in 2009, the then shadow Chancellor supported the principle of a financial transaction tax, and why he is opposing it now while not coming up with an alternative?

Greg Clark: I shall say more about stamp duty shortly, but I am sure the hon. Lady, who I am sure is a student of these matters, will be aware that it was agreed at Pittsburgh in 2009 that the International Monetary Fund should conduct a study to establish whether there was an international basis for proceeding. It conducted that study, and found that there was no such basis.
	I hope that, given the international concern about the proposed tax, the House understands that we have no choice but to challenge it. Not only are there numerous problems with the design, but the proposal flagrantly disregards the position of those who choose not to participate.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham East pointed out that the Chancellor had said that we had no objection to the principle of a financial transaction tax. Of course that is the case. How could we possibly have an objection to a financial transaction tax, given that we in the United Kingdom have had one since 1694? It is called stamp duty, and it is very different from the proposed design of this tax. It contains, for instance, an exemption for intermediaries to avoid the “cascade effect”, whereby at every stage of a transaction a tax racks up throughout the chain. That has a very negative impact on the costs faced by savers and companies. We have no objection to levelling the playing field with countries, including France, that have recently adopted stamp duty-type taxes of one sort or another, but other countries, particularly the United States, are far from being close to a consensus. If the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in the matter, he will know that President Obama and his Administration have described this development as very troubling.
	Of course Britain will play a leading role in promoting global standards when it comes to taxes, but I think the whole House would acknowledge that, in international negotiations, we should focus on what will give us a realistic chance of making a big difference to people, rather than choose to divert effort and negotiating capital into what, given the views of others, would be simply a gesture.

Andy Sawford: The right hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded Minister when it comes to most matters on which I have dealt with him. I think he is right to say that it would be in the interests of this country to pursue a financial transaction tax—indeed, he has acknowledged that his party views it as such. Can he tell us how many times Ministers from our Government have made representations to the American Government on this matter, given the importance of financial services to both our economies?

Greg Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but when we have a chance to participate in and lead international gatherings, we must decide where our negotiating capital or authority can best be deployed. The Prime Minister decided, correctly in my view, to pursue tax transparency at international level, through our leadership of the G8 and in other forums. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is as fair-minded as he considers me to be, would be churlish not to acknowledge the considerable breakthrough achieved by the Prime Minister in recent months, and by the Chancellor before him in Mexico, in respect of tax transparency. I believe that that is an example of the palpable progress that even the Opposition should applaud.

Andrea Leadsom: In the context of transparency, does the Financial Secretary agree that creating an unlevel playing field in which some countries participate and others do not, which is what this financial transaction tax will do, could fall foul of the second markets in financial instruments
	directive, which requires best execution in all transactions? In an essentially international if not global business like financial services, might not those wishing to conduct transactions on behalf of their customers struggle with the idea of using a jurisdiction that had imposed an unlevel financial transaction tax?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. This runs contrary to the whole direction of the reform that we have been promoting and think it essential for the EU to promote, namely movement towards a single market in which operating across borders becomes progressively easier and more transparent. I do not think it sensible to do what the hon. Member for Nottingham East would prefer to do, which is make a global financial transaction tax a greater priority than what we are achieving in terms of tax policy, at a time when we are making great progress.
	Nor would it be right to leave out of the motion the reference to the UK’s legal challenge to the current proposed FTT, which it is widely acknowledged would hit British pensioners—we know the Opposition have them in their sights at the moment—and which is the whole basis of this Committee’s scrutiny of the proposal.

Bob Stewart: If an FTT were imposed on us, where would the money be sent? Would it be sent to the EU, a country or some quango? Where would the money go?

Greg Clark: It would go to the country which was liable for the transaction tax that fell due there, but it would not go to this country, despite the fact that we would incur the costs of enforcing it and collecting the money. There would be no benefit whatever to the UK taxpayer. It would be unfortunate if at a time when we should be enhancing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ ability to collect taxes, we were, in effect, requiring extra resources to be expended on something that was of no benefit whatever to UK taxpayers.

Neil Parish: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the context of the City of London needing to be attractive for financial transactions, all this tax would do is add yet another burden? We want more people to come to the City of London and trade, not fewer, and I feel that this tax would drive people away.

Greg Clark: I agree. It is not only the London economy that would be damaged; the whole European economy would be damaged, too. That cannot be in the interests of EU members, but members are, of course, sovereign and can make their own decisions, provided that that does not interfere with our competences and rights.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) says, “Ah, the Financial Secretary is against it all together!” However, the European Commission itself has done an assessment that shows how extraordinarily costly this will be in terms of jobs and revenues to the member states who introduce it.

Greg Clark: That is absolutely right, although one of the unsatisfactory aspects of the FTT proposal is that it has been frustrating trying to obtain an accurate view of its impact from the Commission. Not enough analysis
	has been conducted. We know that the original estimate of the impact was a reduction in EU GDP of 1.76% and a loss of half a million jobs across the EU. Mysteriously, those figures have changed, but we have had no rigorous explanation for that.
	In the limited time available to us today, I should address the other documents that are the subject of this debate, in particular the one on economic and monetary union. Late last year, the European Commission published its blueprint for a deeper EMU, and the President of the European Commission provided a report called “Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union”. Those reports put forward ideas for possible steps to a more integrated euro area. They are of particular concern to the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and I am sure he will want to speak about the implications for the primacy of this House and this Parliament.
	So far these are not formal proposals but contributions to a wider debate in Europe about what may be needed to bring long-term stability to the euro area. I am sure that further documents will be referred to the Committee and we will have the opportunity to debate them in this House, but I want to emphasise very clearly that the UK will not be part of these arrangements, and although leaders at the December 2012 European Council agreed on a more limited work programme than that set out in these reports, they do raise important questions that need to be addressed.
	The European Council December 2012 conclusions were very clear that any new steps towards strengthening economic governance would need to be accompanied by further steps towards stronger legitimacy and accountability. The European Parliament has a role at the EU level as further integration of policy making and greater pooling of competences take place among the euro-area countries, but this does not mean the European Parliament has primacy over national Parliaments, whose role is absolutely essential and inviolate.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in this House on 12 December in his post-Council statement —and in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I think—we believe that national Parliaments are closest to people across the EU and that is why they should be at the heart of providing democratic legitimacy within the EU.

James Clappison: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend make those comments, but the vision so clearly set out in the motion about where primacy in the EU should lie is completely different from the EU vision that the van Rompuy report sets out, which proposes a step change with the European Parliament having primacy over national institutions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to face up to this, and decide whether or not we want to be part of that vision?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why I was keen to have this debate and make sure the Committee’s concerns on this matter can be aired at an early stage. As I said a few moments ago, the proposals so far do not cohere into proposals that will come forward to be scrutinised, but this debate offers an opportunity for
	this House to send a clear message, as my hon. Friend may be able to do later, during this process of working-up ideas as to what this House’s clear expectations are with regard to the role of national Parliaments. That is very important.

William Cash: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but in the light of the assumption, based on what the Chancellor has said, about the remorseless logic of allowing the core member states to go ahead with proposals for monetary union—which are implicit in the 52 pages of the blueprint alone—does he accept that our policy is allowing this to happen, and although we may not, it appears, be directly involved, we will certainly be affected by it?

Greg Clark: We have taken the view that the problems in the euro area that require resolution should be resolved by its members, and it is in the interests of the international economy that that should be so. My hon. Friend is right to point out, however, that our interests are engaged in this, and we will make use of our powers and rights in the EU to insist that those interests are protected. An early example of that is in the single supervisory mechanism, where through repeated interventions and insistence by the Chancellor and me at ECOFIN meetings, the Prime Minister was ultimately able to secure agreement by way of a text in the regulation of that mechanism explicitly stating that there should be no discrimination against any country or currency as a result of these arrangements.
	These matters will come up from time to time, and protecting our interests requires eternal vigilance. The work that the Committee does in scrutinising and bringing matters to our attention in advance of discussions at European level is crucial to that, which is why the importance of this Parliament needs to be underlined, and will be by this debate.

John Redwood: Monetary union is like having a bank account with the neighbours, and now the neighbours who have put the money in are panicking about the other neighbours who are taking the money out. We see in these documents that EMU is going to progress with much tighter fiscal and banking controls. Is the Minister going to want to keep all British banks out of the extra controls, as we would then no longer be in charge of them, or does he think that the euro activities of our banks must be part of this new centralised scheme from Brussels?

Greg Clark: We have been very clear, and the single supervisory mechanism is a good example, as I have said. We have our arrangements for the supervision of our banks, which are centred around the Bank of England, and it is absolutely right that they should continue in that way, but as each of these proposals is made, we will need to look to our national interest and make sure that our rights are protected.

Michael Connarty: That was a specific point, but I want to say that it is not only Members of the right hon. Gentleman’s party who have serious questions about primacy. On the European Scrutiny Committee, there is a cross-party problem in particular with the President of the EU’s report “Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union”, which talks
	about contracts written by the EU—by the Commission—that will be binding on the countries that sign them, and that will then have penalties if they do not carry them out, taking power away from those countries. There is also the question of what happens then with the impact—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Connarty, you were late coming in, so then to make such a long intervention is not good for the Chair either, especially as you will want to speak, as will a lot of other hon. Members. Short interventions are required.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and I was wrong in seemingly indicating that it was only Government Members who share some of these concerns. He has a long and distinguished record of being not only concerned but an active force in drawing attention and suggesting remedies to some of these matters.
	On the proposals before us, one suggestion that has been made is that there should be new mechanisms to increase the level of co-operation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament to contribute to this process—it certainly will not be the end of the matter. It has been stated that how it is done is a matter for the Parliaments to determine themselves. I understand that the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments agreed in April to set up such an inter-parliamentary conference to discuss EMU-related issues. The conclusions of that meeting state that the conference
	“should consist of representatives from all the National Parliaments of Member countries of the European Union and the European Parliament”.
	That reflects one of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report.
	The Government have consistently highlighted the importance of these issues since the December European Council. For example, it was highlighted by the Prime Minster in his Bloomberg speech in January, when he set out his agenda for EU reform. He was clear that the future European Union we need must entail a bigger and more significant role for national Parliaments. He said:
	“It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU”.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that
	“if the European Parliament were the answer to the question of democratic legitimacy we wouldn’t still be asking it.”
	He went on to outline a concrete set of ideas, including the proposal to have an EU “red card” system that would allow national Parliaments, working together, to block legislation that should not be agreed at the European level. Furthermore, we have said that we would support calls by this House to summon a European Commissioner to explain a proposal directly to this Parliament if the Committee demanded it.

Bernard Jenkin: I wholeheartedly support the principles set out on the primacy of national Parliaments in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech, but neither of the proposals that the Minister has just mentioned—the red card and the summoning of an EU Commissioner—addresses the primacy issue. The red card just creates
	another opportunity for our national Parliament to be outvoted by other national Parliaments, and summoning an EU Commissioner has no legislative effect whatsoever. What are the Government going to table in concrete terms that will assert the primacy of national—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Jenkin, I have mentioned that we want short interventions. That was your second intervention and you are hoping to speak as well. If you want Members to get in, we are going to have to use the time well—it is going very quickly.

Greg Clark: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. Of course these are not panaceas; they are not solutions to the problem. I have said that when these proposals come forward in a more coherent form than they exist in these discussion documents, we will need to ensure that this House—rather than the European Parliament—unambiguously is the body we look to for the endorsement and the legitimacy of these things.
	These are important debates. We are at an early stage of the discussions of economic and monetary union, but I applaud the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, on the part of the Committee, to discuss them at an early stage. I am sure that we will come back to them time and again. We are not expecting major decisions to be made in the weeks ahead, but as with the financial transaction tax and as always, we are very aware of the national interest and will always staunchly pursue and promote it. We will very much have in mind the importance of safeguarding the primacy of this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I see from your look that both the Chair of the Committee and many other hon. Members are keen to contribute to our discussion, and I look forward to hearing their advice and guidance on both these important issues.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move amendment (a), leave out
	‘further notes that the proposals for the Financial Transaction Tax have been challenged by the Government in the European Court of Justice’;
	and insert
	‘calls on the Government to support the principle of an FTT and to learn lessons from the EU proposal and work with other global financial centres, especially the US, to reach a consensus on a design set at a modest rate without creating negative economic consequences and which minimises international tax arbitrage;’.
	Before I discuss the amendment, let me briefly deal with the latter set of issues that the Minister raised—the general issues of national parliamentary sovereignty, the remit of EU policy, enhanced co-operation and so on. Clearly, the European Scrutiny Committee is right to monitor the relationship between EU decisions and the need for public engagement and accountability. Most Labour Members, however, take a more positive view of the role that Britain should be playing in Europe, because the European Union should be a force for good that increases the chances of greater prosperity, peace and the values we hold being asserted with greater impact across the world. We are comfortable, though, with a degree of flexibility and variance across member states; “enhanced co-operation” could be used to our advantage here in the UK for the future.
	Individual member states should have some latitude rather than follow a blind adherence to anything and everything emanating from Brussels. There is a danger that sometimes those who regard themselves as good Europeans—pro-Europeans—end up defending the poor decisions that the Commission and the European Parliament can sometimes come out with. There is nothing wrong at all with national Parliaments disagreeing with the European institutions; it is a healthy sign of an internal dialectic, a constructive challenge and a reality check for those who are more distant from public opinion. We should acknowledge that both the European Commission and the European Parliament need to be reformed to improve their accountability and transparency.
	In the short time available to us today, let us not lose sight of what our electors sent us here to do. Our view is that the British people want us to focus right now relentlessly on getting jobs created, boosting prosperity, creating wealth, and helping to stimulate the economic recovery which is now three years overdue. Navel gazing into the constitutional niceties that fall between the gap of domestic or European institutions is slightly indulgent in that context; we should not lose sight of the most important priorities that our constituents want us to focus on. That is why we tabled this amendment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There seems a slight illogicality in what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. He says that he wants to create jobs but it has already been established that the financial transaction tax would destroy half a million jobs across Europe. How can he have it both ways?

Christopher Leslie: The Minister was talking about the European variant of the FTT, but of course he was forced then to admit that we have already got a partial FTT of sorts—the stamp duty that is in place. I will discuss that in a moment, but it was very instructive that he was vehemently against the extra-territoriality aspects of the European version. Of course the EU version does need to change, and I am not saying in any way that it is perfect. His argument is, “They should stop extra-territoriality aspects in their financial transaction tax”, but our stamp duty contains many of those characteristics, and individuals—those trading UK shares and UK equities—are liable wherever that trade takes place in the world. So the Government clearly have not thought through their position on these things.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman will know that stamp duty follows the issuance principle—in other words, the tax follows where the instrument is originated. The proposed FTT contains that and a residence principle, so it captures a far wider range of transactions, as well as this cascade point which stacks up and racks up the impact. So it is a very different FTT from, and a very much inferior FTT to, the stamp duty.

Christopher Leslie: Why on earth then does the Minister not engage in the process, change people’s minds, get a better design, deal with this residence principle properly and let us have a financial transaction tax that is in all of our best interests, particularly across those global centres?
	The Minister talked about not having objections to an FTT on equities, but he did not say anything about bonds or derivatives in that context. So I challenge him again on the principle: is he absolutely against any sort of FTT on bonds or derivatives? It sounded as though he was, but I say to him that he has to start waking up and engaging with other jurisdictions on these particular points rather than trying to stop it.

Jim Cunningham: May I apologise to the Minister for coming in a little late? The same argument was used about the minimum wage. I recall that when this Government were in opposition, they were telling us that the minimum wage would cost a couple of million jobs.

Christopher Leslie: The public are sick and tired of hearing more of the same from the Government—no solutions, just reasons for not doing anything differently. It should not need to be restated—although it clearly does for Government Members—that the global financial crisis and the collapse of many organisations in the financial services sector required an enormous bail-out from the public purse. That collapse in revenues led to an extra £300 billion on the national debt. As the Government have failed to turn things around, we can see that many of the consequences are still being felt today by our constituents and that we need to do something different.

Stephen Williams: I just want to clarify that my position and that of my party is that a financial transaction tax could make a useful contribution to world development if it were introduced across all the global financial sectors. Is it the Labour party’s position that if the EU proposal, which, as constituted, would affect Paris, Frankfurt and perhaps London, were to go ahead, Labour would support it despite it not also applying to New York, Zurich, Shanghai and everywhere else?

Christopher Leslie: I shall set out our position clearly: we do not think that the EU variant of the FTT is optimal. Of course it should be improved. We think there are better ways to design these things and I shall come to many of the arguments in a moment. I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats—well, the one Liberal Democrat who is in the Chamber—support the principle of a financial transaction tax. That is exactly why we phrased the amendment in the way that we did.
	Let me read the amendment out so that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) can consider it carefully, because I am minded to test the House’s opinion on it. We are calling
	“on the Government to support the principle of an FTT”—
	so far, so good—
	“to learn lessons from the EU proposal”,
	which, of course, we have to do, and to
	“work with other global financial centres, especially the US”,
	as clearly New York is central,
	“to reach a consensus on a design set at a modest rate without creating negative economic consequences and which minimises international tax arbitrage”.
	I am quite sure that in his heart of hearts the hon. Gentleman does not disagree with a single word of that.

Stephen Williams: The shadow Minister is absolutely right: I did not disagree with a single word he read out. It was, however, a selective reading of the amendment, because he left out the first couple of lines, which would leave out the reference to the fact that the Government are challenging the European Parliament’s decision in the European Court of Justice precisely because it affects this country adversely while we do not have global agreement. That is the problem.

Christopher Leslie: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously be suggesting that he is going to vote against the amendment because we have to leave out the reference to further noting that there is a Court challenge. I would have been quite happy to have tabled an amendment that did not leave out that bit of terminology, but—I am sure that you can confirm this, Mr Deputy Speaker—we did not do so because the Clerks tell me that a motion can only have 250 words. Of course, the Government use up their 250 words in the motion, so we needed to find space to insert the reference to the principle of the financial transaction tax. The hon. Gentleman should trust me: I have been considering the point and I did not want to leave anything out of the motion, but we wanted to put that reference in. I hope that with that assurance, he will think again, because the amendment is eminently supportable.

Greg Clark: Well, of all the ingenious ways to concoct a rationale. It is very instructive that out of all the 250 words, he chose to leave out the reference to the challenge to the European version of the financial transaction tax. He could have chosen many others. It is revealing that that is the part of the motion that he thought should be removed.

Christopher Leslie: It is a sentence that takes note of something self-evident. Of course there is a challenge—we all know that there is a challenge and that the Minister’s agenda is to try to throw a spanner in the works and do what he can to stop that European variant of the FTT. He should consider what is in the motion; we did not particularly want to remove any of those other aspects of it. Taking note of the challenge was quite a good bit to leave out. Let me restate the case on which we must focus.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I want to make some progress, as there is not much time.
	For the longer term, we must recalibrate the contribution of financial services to society. Of course, we must nurture a revival and restoration of the City of London’s primacy as the most trusted and professional place for financial transactions, but we cannot ignore the fact that most other jurisdictions are revisiting how banking and finance pays into society and what sort of responsibility we seek.
	We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger)about the IMF report after the G20 in 2009, which sought to think through new ways for the financial services sector to make a fair and substantial contribution to meeting the costs associated with Government interventions to repair it. In this country the interventions, in one form or another, cost near £1 trillion.
	When in government, we started with the bank bonus tax, a payroll tax implemented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor. We thought that was a good idea then and we still think it is a good idea today. The Government then came along with the bank levy; we think that it is a good idea, but it has been poorly enforced. Ministers promised £2.5 billion in every year, but two years ago it raised just £1.8 billion and last year just £1.6 billion. Ministers keep coming back to the House and saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll deal with this shortfall.” The Minister has said that on numerous occasions, but we will believe it when we see it.
	A bank levy and a bank bonus tax can only be part of the bigger picture. We must recognise that there is an ongoing systemic risk from financial services innovation and trading beyond the mainstream banks.

John Redwood: Do the Opposition think that a bank headquartered in London, with its group corporate structure in London and with international operations, should be regulated by the Bank of England to our standards or fully integrated into euro area regulation?

Christopher Leslie: I think that any financial institution that could have a systemic impact on our economy and UK financial services needs to be regulated from within the Bank of England and by our regulatory structures. I hope that there will be a match between our arrangements and the European arrangements. That has been part of my anxiety about the Government’s design of the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority in the context of the Bank of England and how they fit together with the supervisory structures in Europe. We have had that debate and I think it will continue to be played out over the longer term.
	For the time being—for today—the time has come for the Government to get serious about a financial transaction tax. Doing whatever they can to put a spanner in the works and turning their back on the idea is just not good enough. At a time when deficits are persistently high because of rock-bottom growth, leading economies, including those of Britain and the United States, need alternative revenue measures from continuing financial market speculation to relieve pressures on lower and middle-income households and the public services they use.
	There are many lessons from the banking crisis, the most obvious of which is that the sheer globalised might of financial trading can overpower the plans and defences of individual nation states. Governments should not just shrug and accept that fate, which is why the Opposition urge Conservatives and Liberal Democrats actively to champion a financial transaction tax and the reform agenda to harness international financial markets so that they serve our societies and our economies.
	If ever there was a time to seek international consensus on a financial transaction tax it is now, as countries continue to deal with the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the large deficits it created. Deducting a tiny fraction of 1% of the value of trades in equities, bonds and derivatives could raise significant sums if introduced in a concerted way across the principal world financial centres.
	The House of Commons Library has considered what would happen if we applied the EU variant of the tax in the UK and says that it would yield some £10 billion annually. I do not stand by that figure—I do not think that it is necessarily convincing or viable—but it prompts the question of what could be achieved in the UK by a tax with a more modest and sensible design.
	I do not decry the 11 EU countries for forging ahead on the issue—it is a brave decision for those EU countries to go it alone. Even with the participation of Germany, France and Italy, there are still risks involved, and although we are not participating at present we should not withdraw from the debate, not least given the size and importance of the City of London.

Greg Clark: I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He cites the House of Commons Library, which has said that the tax could raise £10 billion, and says that that would be useful. Is he arguing that such a financial transaction tax would be in addition to stamp duty? Is he proposing such a tax?

Christopher Leslie: I think that we need to have a financial transaction tax, ideally in concert with other international centres, in addition to stamp duty. That would be a sensible and modest reaction to the modern circumstances of the financial services sector. As I said to the Minister earlier, he has got to snap out of his “no can do” attitude and to wake up and realise that the public want alternatives. They want different ideas, and the financial transaction tax could offer a good way forward.
	Opposition Members support the principle of a financial transaction tax with the widest global participation. London and New York City are the two largest global financial centres. Our view is that enforcement of the FTT needs both to move in concert. The Government ought to support our amendment, which is totally unobjectionable. We should not have to wait for a change of Government to move this agenda forward. We should be building those alliances, especially with the United States. That is a very important task.

Mark Lazarowicz: The health of the financial services industry is important not just to London and New York, but in my constituency and my city as well. Is not the crucial point that we need international negotiations and international agreement on a way forward? We are all concerned about the impact on jobs in our constituencies. I know that in my area the biggest damage to the financial services industry has been the vagaries of the market, and the uncertainty and instability. That is what we need to tackle.

Christopher Leslie: There are others who make compelling arguments about the need for intervention on the volatility of the high frequency trades, which are clearly many steps removed from the real economy. Some of the potentially beneficial aspects of a financial transaction tax might have a part to play in that, though we must be careful about negative economic consequences. We do not want the impact that the European variant might have.

Chris Heaton-Harris: When did this change in Labour’s policy come about? I distinctly remember, when I was in the European Parliament from 1999 to 2009, Labour MEPs who supported a financial transaction tax being slapped down by their Chancellor, who became Prime Minister. Is it a change in policy that Labour supports a financial transaction tax at European or worldwide level?

Christopher Leslie: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was so close to Labour Members of the European Parliament. I am not familiar with what they were thinking at that time, but on the Labour Benches here we are keen on the principle of an FTT and I have no idea why he is not. I do not understand why Government Members are taking such a stick-in-the-mud view of the issue when it is clear that some of the obstacles that are in the EU variant could be overcome if we engaged and took a leadership role. We have dealt with the stamp duty issue. There are ways of dealing with the extraterritorial and residence issue.

Andrea Leadsom: What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the impact on job losses and costs to savers and pensioners in this country if we were to adopt the financial transaction tax?

Christopher Leslie: I do not think there would be any such impact if we designed the FTT correctly and implemented it in the best interests of the UK, and if we persuaded the Americans to do likewise. Not all financial transaction taxes are the same. Stamp duty is very different from the FTT proposed by the European Union. That is a very broad concept and we need to look at it in a proportionate and modest way. I know that the hon. Lady is familiar with what I am talking about. She should read the amendment. I do not understand why she objects to it.

Andrea Leadsom: Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that if there is a financial transaction tax, that money has to come from somewhere. If it is not coming from savers and pensioners and from moving business overseas, where does he think that money is coming from?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Lady knows very well that millions and possibly billions of financial transactions take place every day of the week—almost every hour—and it is a question of whether there is a social benefit that we should look at as a recompense to society at large, which should not see those financial transactions as totally disconnected from our economy and our society. We know that excessive risk taking and many of the problems that arose from the attachment to the derivatives trade and others got us into the problems of the global financial crisis. Rather than turning its back on it and not engaging, as the Government are doing, the financial services industry should engage in that and think about the design. Let us get it right and do it on our terms, rather than waiting to play catch-up.

Jim Cunningham: Is not the answer to the Minister that Government Members want to protect the bankers? They do not want to make the bankers pay for what they did to the British economy and the world economy.

Christopher Leslie: It sounds that way. The Government’s reticence to get involved and start engaging is telling. I still hold out some hope for the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dem manifesto—who could forget that seminal political tract—promised that Lib Dems will
	“work with other countries to establish new sources of development financing, including bringing forward urgent proposals for a financial transaction tax”.
	I fully expect Liberal Democrat Members shortly to be in our Lobby—they can call it their Lobby, if they wish—in favour of the amendment.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend is making a much more moderate speech than I expected. He has made some serious logical points, but can he give an unambiguous answer to the question of whether it is his policy to go ahead with the tax if New York and Tokyo do not?

Christopher Leslie: I want to do what we can to persuade New York in particular that including London and its financial centre in this would be the best way forward. The Americans already have a very small security exchange commission fee on individual transactions. In terms of the American principle, the foot is already in the door. I was in Washington DC in February to talk not only to Members of Congress, but to others involved in the issue. Far from the impression that those on the Government Benches have, I think we could work on the principle across the Atlantic.
	It is true that Jack Lew, the American Treasury Secretary, has concerns about some of the extraterritorial aspects, but let us work on a solution and find a design that might fit, if that is an issue of principle. However we do that, we should not turn our minds away from it. Similarly, the cascade risk issues could be dealt with. There are issues relating to the impact on the repo market and the funding that many companies depend on there, but again, there are exemptions and ways of dealing with that problem and others, such as at what point a levy would be applied, whether the sale and buy-back of a security would be treated as one transaction, whether the charge would be waived on overnight repos and closing repos, and closing any loopholes that might fall open in the treatment of longer-term maturities. There are ways of dealing with these issues, but any Treasury worth its salt would be engaging on the issue, weighing up the pros and cons, dealing with them and making sure that we had a design of a financial transaction tax that offered some hope for the future.
	A one-size-fits-all blanket approach will not reflect the complexities of our economy or the unintended impact that an FTT could have if it was poorly designed, but learning and adapting those early experiences of the EU approach should inform us in good time to engage in a proper dialogue on the most sensible joint approach between America in particular and the United Kingdom, ideally before 2015, but presumably after a change of Administration here.
	Radical action is needed and a financial transaction tax is an idea whose time has come. For all the aversion to reform emanating from Whitehall and from the Minister, the public and the business community know that we are at risk of a lost decade of economic progress in this country if we do not take bold steps and change
	the rules of the game. A whole generation has been indelibly affected by that global financial failure, and the twin financial centres of London and New York are at the centre of what was a world-changing phenomenon. There is therefore an urgency for the UK to lead the way forward. We must move on from discussion of banks as part of the problem and start to settle on how they will help to repair our public finances and solve the challenges of our economy and society.
	It is not clear what the Government’s policy is. They still claim in part that they are in favour of some sort of financial transaction tax, maybe a stamp duty, but they intend to oppose the amendment. Now is the time for action and leadership on an FTT. The public are sick of the Chancellor’s blind refusal to change course and look at alternatives, and it is now clear that we need serious change and new ideas, not more of the same. I urge the House to support the principle of a financial transaction tax and to support the amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There is now a six-minute limit on contributions, which will leave a few minutes at the end for the Minister to reply.

William Cash: I thank the Financial Secretary for his extremely diligent approach to the debate. He has dealt with all the arguments on the financial transaction tax and I leave those on the record. It is extraordinary that the Opposition should promote the idea, but there is no need for me to go into that this afternoon. I am primarily concerned about the other aspect of the debate and the report, which is the question of primacy. Without primacy, there is no democracy in the House, and without going back to the financial transaction tax, that is a subset of the question of primacy, which is why the Scrutiny Committee insisted on having this debate. I do not think my right hon. Friend will mind me saying that there was a little uncertainty about having it, and I am indebted to him for the clarity with which he has understood this vitally important question.
	Our democracy and legitimacy as a Parliament in this House is the basis on which we decide questions of taxation and spending. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, in the Bloomberg fourth principle, national Parliaments are at the root of our democracy. Therefore, it is absolutely fundamental that we stand by that. I veer away slightly from the trajectory of my right hon. Friend—which he takes for perfectly sensible reasons, but which I disagree with none the less—that somehow the blueprint, which is described as “launching a European debate” is somehow just a piece of blue- sky thinking. It is not. It is absolutely fundamental to the one question that lies at the heart of the Bloomberg speech, in the light of what is said in the Commission document and in the Van Rompuy conclusions, both of which put the prime emphasis on the European Parliament, to all intents and purposes at the expense of national Parliaments. They use the word “commensurate”, but it is not commensurate. We cannot have two Governments dealing with the same subject matter. We cannot have two Parliaments dealing with the same subject matter. It is
	impossible, which is why we have to assert the primacy of this House, and, as the Prime Minister rightly said in the Bloomberg speech, it is at the root of our democracy.

John Redwood: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this crucial issue and bringing it to the attention of the House. Will he accept that those of us who will not have time to speak today are fully behind him in wanting to re-establish and re-assert the primacy of this House in all matters that are important to the British people, and we have a long way to go to do that?

William Cash: We have a long way to go, and in fact the journey is becoming longer. I am extremely glad that we are having a proposal for a referendum Bill, which will enable us to decide these questions, if it comes off. I also believe that there is an understanding among possibly 240 Government Members that there is a serious problem in relation to the EU. There are some who take a different view, but it is a tangential question for them. For us it is fundamental. The biggest demonstration of the problem is this fundamental relationship, which turns on primacy. That is what the Scrutiny Committee focused on, and that is what I will speak about, somewhat briefly.
	Basically, the landscape involves a two-tier Europe. I am astonished that the shadow Minister should have said, in parenthesis, that he did not really want to go into—I paraphrase—the rather self-indulgent ruminations on institutional differences with monetary union and the like. I am certain that if the primacy question were properly explained to the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members, they would appreciate that it is fundamental.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) because he understands that. I am sure that he will not mind me referring to an interesting altercation the other day with Olli Rehn in a committee meeting that we had in Brussels. The hon. Gentleman made it crystal clear with regard to this idea of the centralisation, with the contracts that he referred to in an intervention, when he was rather abruptly caught short, The reality is that he understands that it is an infringement of our democratic relationship with the electorate. It is about the person in the polling booth voting and making a decision about the kind of Government that they want, and the kind of economy that they want. He and I may have a difference of view about whether there should be adjustments to the public purse. I would argue that if there is a black hole out there in the EU and the black hole prevents growth in the EU and we trade 50% with it, we cannot pay for the public services. The hon. Gentleman understands that.
	This goes right to heart of issue of whether we are prepared to accept, at this fork in the road—which is what this document represents—this launching of the European debate, which we must carry forward to ensure that we retain primacy in this House over the issue of taxation and spending. The shadow Minister nods, so now he concedes that it is not a matter of self-indulgence, but a matter of significance. That is why the debate has to take place. I am afraid to say that the black hole, and the direction in which it is going—because of the two-tier arrangement that is being created, on which they are determined; I could quote from the documents, which
	talk about political integration that is needed within the hard core and they know what it means—will lead to a German Europe. They will control that hard core. The bottom line is that we cannot be part of it. That means that there is a change in the fundamental relationship, not merely for monetary union reasons, not merely for reasons of remorseless logic, but for political ones.

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Barry Gardiner: GDP is a measure of productivity, but it is not a measure of wealth, and it is not a measure of growth in the real economy. Derivative volumes have ballooned out of all proportion to the growth of the real economy. Some would say that that says much more about rent extraction by the financial services sector than a real world story of genuine and proportionate insurance.
	When the global financial crisis hit in 2008, many banks were weakened precisely by their exposure to derivatives. In fact, Warren Buffett has described them as financial weapons of mass destruction. They have traded those derivatives at ever-increasing speeds. It is the institutions that are heavily involved in high value, high frequency derivative trading that would feel the biggest impact of the FTT, and whose riskier activities the rest of society has a vested interest in reining in. That is precisely the point that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister made. The public want to see these activities curtailed to reasonable levels such that they reflect the genuine risks of economic growth.
	It was Avinash Persaud, the former J.P. Morgan and UBS executive, who in the Financial Times recently commented:
	“this small tax on churning would limit some of these activities and help to refocus the financial system on to its purpose of the safe financing of real economic activity.”
	That is a good thing and we should be open to the idea of exploring it with our colleagues across the water.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making some strong points. Does he recall Lord Turner describing some of the activities to which he is referring as “socially useless capitalism”?

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public want politicians to get back to focusing on the real productive economy. They are bewildered, frankly, by the spin-off of derivatives. I was on the floor of the New York stock exchange when it all went belly up on 24 September 2008, and I remember discussing what all the turmoil was about with members of the Senate Banking Committee in Washington a couple of days later. When I returned to the UK, it was clear that people could not understand how things had become so far divorced from reality.
	The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is unfortunately no longer in her place, made the point that an FTT on derivatives might hit pensioners. I do not think that is a convincing argument. Pension funds are obviously vital to our economy, and they buy derivatives to insure against the risk of poor performance by their portfolio, but those funds are
	much more likely to hold their derivatives until they reach maturity, which means that they would have to pay only a tiny amount under an FTT because their trades are far fewer—the very opposite of the type of short-term, superfast trading that grew in the run-up to the crisis. Most of the burden of paying the FTT would fall on superfast traders and speculative exchanges, which are very far removed from the real economy.
	I want to introduce another note into the debate before sitting down. Our Government, along with many other participants in the United Nations framework convention on climate change, have stated that there will be a green climate fund. That fund will have to raise $100 billion each year by 2020—that is the minimum that the UK and our European negotiating partners think will be necessary to help developing countries increase their own economies, reduce poverty and offset the impact of dangerous climate change. The FTT would be an extraordinarily adept mechanism for raising those funds, which are vital to real growth in our economy. If we look at the UK economy, we will find that only 6% relates to the green economy, yet that 6% provided 30% of our economic growth in 2011. I would like to see the funds from the FTT predicated to use in the green climate fund.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I begin by referring Members to my declaration of interests and by celebrating the 198th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. We are debating Europe on Waterloo day, which commemorates an occasion when an alliance of nation states came together to defeat the ambition of a Frenchman to have a single European state, so it could not be a better day for debating these matters.
	I will deal first with the financial transaction tax, because it is a rotten idea. The fact that we have stamp duty, a tax that has been around for centuries and is not paid on rapid transactions—it is paid only on long-term holdings—or by market makers, or for contracts for difference, or on American depositary receipts, is not an argument for saying that a financial transaction tax can work in the sophisticated financial system that the world operates today.
	What the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) consistently ignores is who the tax would ultimately fall on. In the wonderful world that he was creating, there was a tax that could be designed—not, of course, the one that the Europeans have designed, but another, imaginary tax—that would never seem to fall to anybody. It could take £10 billion out of the economy without anyone really having to pay for it, apart from some nasty, evil bankers who, when they take their hats off, can be seen to have horns underneath.
	However, that is not the real world, because the transactions that take place in the City represent an underlying reality, be it the debt issued by the Government, mortgages sold on by banks, or pension funds being invested around the globe. Individuals would end up paying that tax because the costs of their doing business with banks would increase. We know that clearly from the mortgage market, complicated as it may be, because the ability to package mortgages and sell them reduces the cost of capital to banks and reduces the cost to people of buying their own homes. What the Opposition
	are saying is that they want to make mortgages more expensive. They want to put a tax on people who are least able to pay.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman was doing so well, but unfortunately the level of scaremongering undermines his whole argument. Is he really saying that there is absolutely no case for a tiny fraction, less than a tenth of one percentage point—[Interruption.] I am talking not about the EU variant but about the principle of a financial transaction tax. Is he saying that there is absolutely no case to be made for a financial transaction tax on derivatives or bonds when we have 50 basis points—half a percentage point—of stamp duty on UK equities, or is he also calling for repeal of UK stamp duty?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is no case for a financial transaction tax. It would be enormously destructive of this country’s financial system. The cascade effect to which the Minister referred is at the heart of this. When things are being traded dozens of times a day, what starts off as a little tax suddenly becomes a very big tax. The hon. Gentleman conjures £10 billion out of the air. We cannot withdraw £10 billion from the economy without it having an economic effect and without it being paid for by somebody.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman is making a dramatic and scaremongering speech. If the FTT is such a terrible idea, I wonder why people like Bill Gates, George Soros and, indeed, 1,000 of the world’s leading economists, backed the principle of such a tax.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I seem to remember that 365 economists said that Margaret Thatcher had got it wrong in 1981, but one great and noble Prime Minister had got it right and 365 economists were flawed in their thinking. I would back the British politician against a collection of academic economists living in an ethereal world.
	A financial transaction tax would ultimately be paid for by the British people through higher housing costs, lower pensions and possibly through higher Government borrowing costs leading to higher overall taxation. Of course the Labour party wants higher taxation, because that is what it has always been in favour of—more taxes, more spending and a worse economy.
	I would now like to move on to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), because they, too, are extremely important. They relate to the European Union’s ambitions to become a superstate based on the euro. I accept that we are outside the euro, but that is not entirely a protection from the development of the EU along the lines of a single state with a single Government based in Brussels. Of the papers we are considering today, there is one from the European Commission showing that it wants within 18 months to have a eurozone seat on the International Monetary Fund’s board, that it wants within five years to co-ordinate eurozone tax and employment policies, and that it wants a political union with adequate pooling of sovereignty with central budgets as its own fiscal capacity and a means of imposing budgetary and economic decisions on its members. That means a single Treasury and a single fiscal union.
	The danger for us is that, as the European Union obtains more powers for the eurozone, our association with it will become very different from the present one, and one in which we have little influence over what happens because we are outside it. Alternatively, we could get dragged into the arrangements because, as our experience of the European Union shows, our opt-outs will ultimately expire. We have seen that happening with the social chapter, and we will see it again next year with the decision on title V of the Lisbon treaty. We should therefore be very careful about the ambitions of the European Commission in relation to this single government for the eurozone.
	We should also be cautious about what the President of the European Union, Mr van Rompuy, has to say. He has published a paper lauding the success of the euro and all that it has done. It states:
	“The euro area needs stronger mechanisms…so that Member States can reap the full benefits of the EMU.”
	That is a fascinating way of phrasing it: “the full benefits”. After all the other benefits that they have so far received, there are further benefits to give the member states if only they will join a tighter system of governance. I wonder whether the unemployed Greek youths have noticed all the benefits that they have received from this wonderful beneficent eurozone.
	Mr van Rompuy has also been kind enough to say:
	“‘More Europe’ is not an end in itself, but rather a means for serving the citizens of Europe and increasing their prosperity.”
	I am proud to say that I am a subject of Her Majesty, and not a citizen of Europe. The idea that we need more Europe to benefit the citizens of the member states is palpably false. The more Europe we have had, the worse the situation has become. The more powers that have accreted to Europe, the more bureaucratic, less democratic and worse run has become the whole system of the European Union. The economies of the European Union have suffered because of the euro.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I apologise, but I will not, as I have only 45 seconds left, and counting. I have had two extra minutes already.
	I want to finish on the point of democratic legitimacy and accountability. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is in the Chamber, because it was his Bill in 2011 that so wisely reminded us that United Kingdom powers are ceded to Europe only by Act of Parliament and can be withdrawn. However, van Rompuy says that
	“the involvement of the European Parliament as regards accountability for decisions taken at the European level”
	is key. I deny that. It is this House that is key, and it is this House that should maintain our democracy.

Michael Connarty: I have news for the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). Bill Gates was not an academic. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman might want to make a comparison with his own career, which his declaration of interest shows to have been in banking.
	He has defended that business strongly. Bill Gates is now doing something that a financial transaction tax would achieve universally, across the world. It would raise money from the speculative, gambling casino economy that the world has become and give it to those who are often mineral rich or agriculture rich but massively exploited by those of us who live on the fat of that speculation.
	For me, a financial transaction tax is suitable only if it is a worldwide arrangement. It is certainly not suitable for the money-raising powers of the European Commission, yet that is what the Commission is proposing: just another mechanism for a fat, gorged organisation to take money from yet another sector of the economy. If it got rid of the common agricultural policy failures, 40% of the EU budget would be available for positive use, so perhaps the Commission should look at that, rather than at trying to get more money in from a transaction tax.
	I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) clarifying our position on this matter, because I was worried that the drafting of our amendment did not make it 100% clear that we opposed the introduction of a European transaction tax at any time. Only in the context of advancing development worldwide can we justify the imposition of such a tax. If it is not done on that basis, it will have an adverse effect.
	The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in her place, spoke against the introduction of any kind of financial transaction tax. She did not seem to realise that, according to her argument, stamp duty, which is basically a national levy for national spend, should theoretically also be abandoned. Her argument was that any kind of financial transaction tax prevents jobs from being created. However, as we use taxation for positive purposes in most cases, there are reasons why people should pay taxes—even those fat bankers with horns on their heads that the hon. Member for North East Somerset described.

Mark Lazarowicz: Before my hon. Friend moves on, I want to ask a question related to an international financial transaction tax. It appears that progress has been made on getting the UK overseas territories to be more transparent on tax. Is this not a good opportunity to encourage them to also be part of an FTT system, because we all know that a lot of the dodgy transactions take place in bank speculation in some of the countries for which we have an indirect responsibility?

Michael Connarty: That is part of a separate debate, but I agree that all territories controlled by any of the world’s major economies should be not just transparent, but properly taxed. Just because someone sticks a name on a door in the Cayman Islands and pays a Cayman citizen theoretically to be the director, there is no reason why they should not pay taxation wherever they make their money in the world. That would certainly be helpful.
	Turning to economic and monetary union, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) lauded me highly, but slightly falsely. My main concern with Olli Rehn’s paper on a blueprint for a deep and genuine EMU is that it strongly suggests that countries will have their primacy removed. That is even more the case with the Von Rompuy paper, “Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary
	Union”. It is clear that those documents take away, in the first place, from the weakest of the 17 any right to set their own budget or any budget that has not been agreed by the Commission, and the associated penalties would further damage the economies of those countries.
	My great problem with the proposals is that they are a threat to the European Union. I believe that they have become obsessed with the euro. Their documents refer again and again not to the European Union, European citizens, European Governments or European projects, but to the euro. The countries that are not keeping in line with the stability and growth pact are a threat to the euro, which has become the raison d’être of the European project for many people at its centre. The hon. Member for North East Somerset has described it, correctly, as a token for them to control Europe through a single body, the European Commission, in partnership, as its documents keep saying, with the European Parliament. We have no real say in this. The European Parliament legitimises what is done by the European Union. The power of the Lisbon treaty has not just tipped over; it has fallen into the abyss of the Commission-controlled EMU.
	There is a negation of primacy and countries are being forced to do things in their budgets that are bad for their citizens. We are supposed to be a co-operative European Union. I voted for it in 1975 and would do so again, but I would like more tools to fight against those centralising powers.
	There is also a failing austerity plan in all these countries: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain will be weaker economically and more impoverished and indebted at the end of this than they were at the beginning, but for what reason? What contribution will that make to the stability of a new economy? It means that the powerful countries in the north will become more powerful over the rest. I believe that when they are finished with the weaker countries, they will come for the rest of the 17 and start to control their budgets. If they had their way and if we were not outside the euro, they would be telling us that we could not do what we are doing to try to deal with our economy—not that it is being done very well in this country, because the austerity measures here parallel those demanded by the European Commission of the failing economies in the south of Europe.
	I am worried that we will not have the ability in the future to ameliorate what will happen in the general European economy. That is what I mean by primacy. Not only will the primacy of those countries be destroyed; our ability to effect and do something positive for the economies of the European Union—through growth and sharing burdens, rather than through penalising and punishing countries—will be weakened.
	Finally, when did the stability and growth pact not have any teeth or do anything? It was when Germany broke it again and again as it built investments in its own economy to make it what it is now: a strong, growing economy. I am worried that, as a result of the primacy that will be lost all over Europe, countries will lose the ability to reflate and build a proper economy.

Greg Clark: In the couple of minutes available to me, I will attempt to respond to what has been a spirited debate on both sides. It has been so spirited that the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)
	rather startled the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who did not expect to hear anything so—

Christopher Leslie: Good.

Greg Clark: It was fainter praise than good.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for his kind words. I am glad that we were able to accommodate the two debates that he was keen to have. I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the characteristic tour de force on Waterloo day from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the flinty contribution of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who shares many of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone on the primacy of this place.
	This has been a fascinating and enlightening debate. We have discovered that the policy of the Opposition in calling for a financial transaction tax turns out to be to call for an additional financial transaction tax. As has been clear from the exchanges across the House, we already have a financial transaction tax in this country; it is called stamp duty. The hon. Member for Nottingham East made it very clear that he proposes an additional tax on British savers, pensioners, mortgage holders and business of up to £10 billion. He said that that would come not from the magic—

Christopher Leslie: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Clark: No, I only have a couple of minutes.

Christopher Leslie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important that the Minister’s misinterpretation of what I said should not be allowed—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. That is not a point of order, but a point of debate. Resume your seat, Mr Leslie.

Greg Clark: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will be clear for people to see on the record that this is another proposed tax from the magic money tree that the hon. Gentleman frequently has recourse to.
	We are not against a financial transaction tax in principle. We have one in stamp duty. The idea that we should not refer this matter to the ECJ is totally inappropriate. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 215, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16988/1/12, a Commission Communication on a Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU: Launching a European debate, an Un-numbered European Document dated 5 December 2012, a Report from the President of the European Council: Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union, European Union Documents No. 15390/12, a draft Council Decision authorising enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax, and No. 6442/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Council Directive implementing enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax; observes that the European Scrutiny Committee has reported on these documents and concluded that they raise questions relating to parliamentary sovereignty and primacy as well as fiscal and monetary issues; notes that the European Commission Communication states that ‘Interparliamentary co-operation as such does not, however, ensure democratic legitimacy for EU decisions. That requires a parliamentary assembly representatively composed in which votes can be taken. The European Parliament, and only it, is that assembly for the EU and hence for the euro’, and that the report from the President of the European Council concludes that ‘further integration of policy making and a greater pooling of competences at the European level should first and foremost be accompanied with a commensurate involvement of the European Parliament in the
	integrated frameworks for a genuine EMU’; further notes that the proposals for the Financial Transaction Tax have been challenged by the Government in the European Court of Justice; notes that recent European Treaties and protocols have emphasised the role of national parliaments throughout the European Union as the foundation of democratic legitimacy and accountability; and believes that this role is the pivot upon which democracy in the United Kingdom must be based on behalf of the voters in every constituency.

European Elections 2014

[Relevant document: First Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-i, Chapter 3.]

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7648/13, a Commission Communication on preparing for the 2014 European elections and enhancing their democratic and efficient conduct, and No. 7650/13, a Commission Recommendation on enhancing the democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament; notes that whilst European political parties are free to support candidates for Commission President, this does not limit the European Council’s selection of a candidate; agrees with the Government that the suggestion for a common voting day across the EU is unhelpful and would achieve the opposite of the stated intention of increasing voter turnout; and further notes that there is currently no indication that these documents are going to be followed up by formal legislative proposals.
	I welcome this opportunity to discuss these European Commission recommendations in the House. It is now less than 12 months until the 2014 European parliamentary elections due to be held from Thursday 22 May to Sunday 25 May. This debate is therefore timely. [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sorry Minister. Members who wish to have private conversations would be well advised to leave the Chamber. There are those who wish to debate the European recommendations, and it is not very courteous to the Minister either.

David Lidington: On 12 March, the European Commission published a set of recommendations and a communication concerning the 2014 European parliamentary elections whose contents also touched on other areas of European political life. The proposals do not carry legal weight; they are non-binding suggestions to member states and national and European political parties. The Government always welcome contributions to the ongoing debate about democracy in the EU, but I believe that these specific proposals mistakenly assume that there is a single European political identity—a single European demos—and ignore the fact that the fundamental source of democratic legitimacy within the EU is derived from national Parliaments accountable to their national electorates. I believe that we need to work to strengthen the links between national democracies, their Parliaments and EU institutions.
	We consider it unlikely that these recommendations will become formal legislative proposals from the Commission, but if they were to take that form, they would need to be decided by unanimity. The relevant treaty articles are articles 22(2) and 223(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. As you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, under the European Union Act 2011, any measure introduced by the Commission and agreed by the Council and Parliament under article 223(1) would also require an Act of Parliament for the United Kingdom to give it assent. The consequence of that is that the UK would have a veto over any such proposed change.
	I want briefly to set out the recommendations in more detail, addressing those that concern the conduct of European elections, before turning to the Commission recommendation that European political parties make known their candidate for the post of Commission President. The first and second recommendations put forward by the Commission are intended to promote connections between European political parties and national political parties. The proposals suggest that national political parties should explain their connection with European political parties and make clear that connection in their electoral documents. Political parties in this country are perfectly free to advertise their European affiliation if they so choose. Ballot papers in the United Kingdom will continue to be produced in accordance with UK law, as will party political literature. If a United Kingdom party wishes prominently to display its European political affiliation, it is free to do so, but there should be no question of compulsion.
	Recommendation 4—the suggestion that member states ought to agree a common voting day for elections to the European Parliament—has attracted some attention in the media. At the moment, elections to the European Parliament take place over a four-day period, which in 2014 is set to fall between 22 and 25 May, as I mentioned earlier. I fear that a number of right hon. and hon. Members might have read reports that the EU intends to force the UK to hold elections on a Sunday. It is my happy duty to inform the House that this is not the case. The UK will continue to hold elections on a Thursday, as is our tradition, and I am sure that other member states will rest equally assured that they will be able to continue to hold elections on their day of choice. To mandate that a member state change its election day would achieve the very opposite of the declared aim of the proposals—namely, an increase in voter turnout—and would be detrimental to electoral diversity across the EU.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have much sympathy with what the Minister is saying, but he seems to be eliding two things: the choice of election day being a national matter, not a European Union matter, and whether it should be a Thursday or a Sunday, which is the other component. They are two different questions. Whatever day it is, does he agree that we should choose it? That is the important point.

David Lidington: I have no quarrel or disagreement with the hon. Gentleman on that count.

Mark Field: Much as I think it would be quite wrong for anything to be mandated—the decision should be made locally—the so-called tradition of Thursday elections in the UK goes back only about 100 years. Perhaps it would be more sensible to consider a weekend election, for all the convenience factors that would come with that, but also because, in the case of these elections, it might allow us to hold elections on two weekend days some three or four weeks apart, rather than having to change our day for local elections, as we have, from the traditional first Thursday in May to 22 May, which is what is now envisaged for those elections and the European elections next year.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right that it used to be the case that general elections in this country took place over a number of days. Indeed, it was not completely
	uncommon for candidates to put themselves forward for election in more than one constituency. If the House were to consider a change of the sort that he and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) suggest, it ought to be debated in the context not solely of European parliamentary elections, but of our electoral practice more generally, covering general and local elections, as well as European elections. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be interested to hear any proposals that Members wish to make.

Jim Shannon: What consideration have the Government and the Minister given to the opinion of faith groups in relation to holding elections on any day other than a Thursday, and certainly not on a Sunday?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on one of the key problems with shifting away from our practice of voting on a Thursday—namely, that to pick any day over the weekend from Friday to Sunday would inevitably begin to trespass on the religious practices of faith groups in various parts of the United Kingdom. We would need to look at how the timing of a polling day might have an impact on people from such groups, and not just in respect of the voting day because a large number of constituencies and local authorities still count votes the day following polling day, so that has to be taken into consideration, too.

Andrew Percy: I am reassured by what the Minister says. I can tell him that, whether it be held on a Sunday, a Thursday or any other day, the people of Brigg and Goole will be equally uninterested in the European parliamentary election. I agree with my right hon. Friend on what he says about maintaining our Thursday elections. Has he assessed how much the ridiculous situation of paying for security and the guarding of ballot boxes from Thursday to Sunday costs us? Plenty of other countries around the world, such as Canada, have results coming in for elections held on the same day, but the results from eastern Canada are known before the people in western Canada have finished voting. Why can we not just go back to counting on a Thursday and save the taxpayer some money?

David Lidington: That is an interesting view. I do not know whether the Cabinet Office has the figures for which my hon. Friend asks. I think that the agreement reached some years ago within the EU—that voting should take place over a number of days—was designed to accommodate both the fact that different countries had the habit of voting on different days of the week and the wish not to declare votes early in case the votes in one country affected how votes were cast in another country. I have to say that I rather agree with my hon. Friend, as the prospect of that happening is, in practice, pretty slim. I doubt whether he will be influenced in his campaigning by the outcome of elections in Greece or Malta. The arrangements we now have were incorporated into European law, and it is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

David Lidington: I shall give way briefly, but then I want to make some progress.

Kelvin Hopkins: We are proposing the alternatives of Sunday and Thursday, but there is also the alternative of Saturday, which would be convenient for many industrial workers. Saturday is a day of rest for many, perhaps not all, but this day would avoid the religious complications that the Minister mentions.

David Lidington: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the problem with Saturday is, first, that a number of Jewish communities would find it difficult and, further, that we would still be left with the problem of asking people to count votes and declare results on the Sunday, which would present a difficulty for a number of Christian denominations. This is not a straightforward issue, but as I say it goes beyond the scope of the European Commission recommendations and it is probably best addressed in the context of a wider debate about the timing of elections in the UK.
	The four technical recommendations from the Commission—recommendations 5 to 8—are directed at improving the conduct of European elections through EU directive 93/109/EC on information exchange. These four recommendations are not new proposals, but rather suggestions to member states on how to enhance their implementation of the existing requirements of the directive.
	The Government are committed to fulfilling their obligations under this directive and we currently implement the legal requirements in full. We do, however, remain concerned about the practical demands of this process and about the burden of implementation being much greater than the prevalence of the problem it is designed to address—namely, double voting. The Government have noted the Commission’s recommendations in this area and we will take them into account in our preparations for the 2014 European parliamentary elections.
	I should add, to reassure the House, that any move that the Commission might hypothetically make in the future to incorporate those four recommendations in a revised version of the directive would require unanimity under article 22(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
	The Commission’s third recommendation states that European and national political parties should make known their nominations for the post of President of the European Commission. Some European political parties are very likely to nominate particular individuals as their candidates for the post. They are free to do so if they wish, and I am sure that that will result in a lively debate among political parties. Indeed, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) whether she and her party intend to campaign ardently in favour of Mr Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, who is currently the only declared candidate on behalf of the Party of European Socialists as the proposed successor to President Barroso.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be relevant to our business if my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East accepted the Minister’s invitation to discuss who might or might not be a candidate? Where does that feature on the Order Paper?

Dawn Primarolo: I think that the Minister is stretching a point, as he has done several times already. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Perhaps we could return to the specifics of the debate, and any political jousting could take place outside the Chamber afterwards.

David Lidington: I am sure that, if the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) wishes to put himself forward as a rival to Mr Schulz, he will find some support on the Opposition Benches.
	It is being suggested in some quarters, and was hinted at in the Commission’s communication, that only one of the candidates named by European political parties can become President of the European Commission. I have read—as, I am sure, have other Members—a fair bit of confused reporting on the process for selecting the next President, and it may help the House if I briefly explain the system as it is described in the treaties.
	As is stated in article 17(7) of the treaty on European union, the European Council, acting by qualified majority,
	“Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations… shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission.”
	The candidate shall then be elected by a majority of the European Parliament’s Members. If the candidate cannot attain a majority, the European Council will propose a new candidate.
	The House will note that there is no mention in the treaty of European political party candidates for the post of Commission President. In our opinion, such candidates were not envisaged by the requirement for the European Council to take account of the European Parliament elections. While there is nothing in the treaty to prevent European political parties from running candidates, there is also nothing to mandate the European Council to limit its selection of a Commission President to those in that particular pool, and any proposal to impose such a mandate would require amendment of the treaty.

Graham Stringer: This is mind-bogglingly irrelevant to the problems of my constituents. Would it not be better for the Minister to focus on abolishing six of the seven Presidents of the European Union?

David Lidington: I am speaking about this because it is very relevant to the communication which the European Scrutiny Committee has referred to the Floor of the House—indeed, it relates to one of the integral parts of that communication. While I am the first to argue that the European Union ought to slim down its bureaucracy, and I would probably agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are some European institutions whose absence we would not mourn because they do not contribute much to the well-being of European citizens, I believe that the arrangements for the election of a successor to President Barroso are quite important, because the holder of that office will be in a position to exercise a significant influence on policies that affect this country. It is therefore important that we are clear about the rules under which his successor will be selected. It is also important that the UK Government make it clear that we will resist any attempt to interpret the treaties as
	limiting the choice available to the European Council in a way that is not justified by the text of the treaties, but which some in other parts of Europe are keen to see.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On that point, how does my right hon. Friend interpret the start of article 17(7) of the treaty on European union:
	“Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations”?
	Surely the only way to take into account the elections to the European Parliament is to consider the results by political party. If the Commission brought forward specific proposals in this regard, what legal response would the Government have, or how might the European Court of Justice interpret it?

David Lidington: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Minister, you are stretching the debate very widely, as the document is not legally binding and therefore that is not to do with why this matter has been referred to the Floor of the House. This is not a blue-sky thinking exercise. Of course refer to the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which lays out the process, but please stick to what is on the Order Paper and what is before us now, not in future.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, I am speaking to the Minister, not you. I was not ruling what you said out of order.

Martin Horwood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion specifically refers to the proposals from the Commission, which include matters relevant to the nomination of candidates for the post of President. The article quoted by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is therefore directly relevant. Are we free to discuss it in that respect at least?

Dawn Primarolo: With respect, Mr Horwood, if you had listened to what I said, you would have heard me say article 17(7) is relevant. I was just suggesting to the Minister that, given that the whole document is not legally binding, while it is important that he explains the current arrangements, I hope he will not continue to stretch the debate rather wider than the document in question provides for. So you can of course discuss article 17(7).

David Lidington: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), let me explain our view on article 17(7). The European Council retains complete freedom to nominate whom it wishes. It is required to take into account the elections to the European Parliament, but there is nothing in article 17(7) or elsewhere in the treaty on European union that suggests the European Council is in any way mandated to limit its election to a particular pool of candidates. Indeed, it may be that no one political family commands a majority in the European Parliament, or it may be that different combinations of European political parties within the European Parliament prefer one candidate rather than another, and it may not be
	possible, simply by looking at which of the larger European groupings ends up in the lead after the elections next year, to determine what the preference even of the Parliament itself might be as to the preferred candidate.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On page 14 of the package before us of the Commission’s communications, it specifically quotes article 17(7) in support of its point about political parties and the European presidency. I therefore wonder if it is reading more into article 17(7) than the Minister believes is there.

David Lidington: I believe it is, and I think it is fair to say that there are plenty of people in and around the European Commission, and indeed the European Parliament, who believe—perfectly honourably—that the way forward is to move towards a system in which it is the European Parliament, rather than the Heads of Government assembled in the European Council, that has the key role in nominating the President of the Commission and thereafter holding the Commission to account. These are people who believe that it is right and possible to create a European demos, and see that step as a way so to do. What I am saying to my hon. Friend is that I see, and the Government see, nothing in the treaty that requires the European Council to limit its freedom of action in the way that some are suggesting.

Chris Heaton-Harris: This point is not on article 17(7) per se. The motion uses the words
	“notes that whilst European political parties are free to support candidates”.
	The Minister will know that European political parties have huge amounts of money, which they are not allowed to spend on political campaigning in the course of elections. Surely this document has the potential to ride a coach and horses through that law, internal though it may be to the Parliament, because there are political parties across Europe, including some in the United Kingdom, that do use European political party funding to fund their whole party hierarchy.

David Lidington: It is important to distinguish a couple of points. First, nothing in these Commission documents is a legally binding proposal. I repeat: these have the status of recommendations, nothing more. The recommendation we are now debating is addressed to European political parties and national political parties, and it deals with how the Commission thinks they might better arrange their affairs. It is entirely up to both the European and the national political parties to decide whether they pay any attention to the Commission’s recommendations or not.
	Secondly, there are provisions in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union to govern the conduct of European parliamentary elections. Those are embodied in a statute based on the relevant articles of the TFEU. For that statute to be amended, or for other changes to be brought forward, unanimity would be required under article 223, as I said earlier. The question of party political spending, including by candidates within the United Kingdom, is governed by the relevant United Kingdom statutes, including, most obviously, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. At the moment, there is a clear legal distinction between certain measures that are set at European level and require the
	unanimous agreement of every member state, and the rules on party fundraising, party financing and election expenditure, which remain a matter for member states and are not touched in any way, even by these Commission recommendations.
	I wish to conclude on the following point. I said at the start of my remarks that the Government believed there is a genuine problem of lack of democratic legitimacy within the European Union, but that these proposals suggested by the Commission do not provide the answer to that crisis. The Government’s preference would be to see a greater role for national Parliaments in holding European decisions to account. Although I will not expatiate on the detail, the ideas that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have proposed in recent weeks on the greater use of the yellow card mechanism or creating a red card mechanism, giving national Parliaments the right to block legislation that need not be agreed at European level, are intended as a contribution to a vigorous debate, which we have now launched, within Europe, not just within the UK. The absence of democratic legitimacy and adequate democratic accountability within the EU is a major political question that needs serious debate and consideration right across the European Union, but it is not answered by the proposals before us this evening.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome the opportunity that the European Scrutiny Committee has given the House to scrutinise these documents from the European Commission, one a communication and the other a recommendation, which make suggestions about the conduct and organisation of European elections by member states. The stated objective of the European Commission is to increase the democratic legitimacy of the EU and boost turnout in European elections. Fortunately, European communications and recommendations, as their names suggest, do not have legal force and, as the Minister stressed, the documents are not binding on member states. That is the only good thing about them.
	The Opposition are pragmatically pro-European, but we do not agree with every directive, proposal or suggestion that comes out of European institutions. In this case, in particular, we disagree with the suggestions made by the European Commission and hope that our Government, when they are in Brussels negotiating on these and other documents, will put forward their opposition. I agree with the words in the motion.

David Nuttall: On the question of democratic legitimacy, does the hon. Lady agree that one problem is that European elections are held according to the strange d’Hondt form of proportional representation? The vast majority of British electors have no idea how it operates, which might well be part of the reason why turnout is so low in this country.

Emma Reynolds: Turnout is low for many reasons, and I agree that that is one of them. I would have preferred us to keep the system we had before 1999, under which we had constituencies that were bigger than the Westminster constituencies, as we have fewer
	MEPs than we have MPs but they retained the link with their constituency and their local party—the constituency Labour party for us, or the Conservative association for Conservative MEPs. I am not quite sure what the Liberal Democrats call their local parties—

Ian Lucas: They are not sure, either.

Emma Reynolds: They might not be sure.
	The MEP would not only have a home constituency to look after but would have a political home to which they could refer, which was manageable and of a manageable size.

Kelvin Hopkins: I must say that I am delighted by what my hon. Friend has just said about first past the post as opposed to list system PR. Does she think that our party might possibly make a commitment at the next election to restore first past the post for European elections in Britain?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Much as the hon. Lady might be tempted by that question, can we stick specifically to the European document before us? Manifestos can be written elsewhere.

Emma Reynolds: My overall objective in this House is obviously to make my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) happy, but I will defer to your instructions, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not go down that line of argument.
	In this case, and in others, the European Commission seems to have disregarded a very important principle that applies to European co-operation—that is, the subsidiarity principle. It is clear and obvious to me and Members across the House that it should be the decision of democratic political parties in the UK to decide how to approach European elections and how to campaign for them, and that it is up to Ministers in our Government and to this Parliament to decide on which day we should hold those elections. One of the most concerning elements of the proposals is the one to hold the European elections on the same day across the European Union. The Commission argues that member states should agree on
	“a common day for elections to the European Parliament, with polling stations closing at the same time.”
	That argument is problematic in two different ways. First, as has already been stated, we have a tradition in the UK of voting on a Thursday that, I understand, goes back to the 1930s. It is now fixed in law that local and general elections must take place on a Thursday. The date of European elections is not fixed in law but, according to section 4 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, European elections should be held on a date fixed by the Secretary of State for Justice. Nevertheless, here as well, the convention is that European elections take place on a Thursday, in line with other elections, as I described.
	There are different traditions in different member states of the European Union. We, the Danes and the Dutch usually vote on a Thursday, the Irish vote on a Friday, and some other member states tend to vote on a Saturday or a Sunday. I strongly believe that it should continue to be a decision made by member states’ Governments as to which day of the week elections
	should be held. Here in the UK it is essential that there is uniformity across the different sets of elections, so general, local and European elections should all take place on a Thursday.
	There is already a problem with low turnout in European elections. I would like to see a higher turnout in those elections. The Commission states that it wants to boost turnout and increase democratic legitimacy. I fear that its proposal to hold elections on the same day throughout the EU would do exactly the opposite of the stated objective. It might further decrease voter turnout and would therefore do nothing to improve democratic legitimacy.
	Secondly, the idea that polling stations should close at the same time is also problematic because of the differences in time zones across the EU. Polls that close at 10 pm in the UK would close earlier in Greece, for example. As early as 1960, the European Parliament adopted proposals for a “uniform procedure” for its member states’ elections, to be used by all member states, but in reality, five decades later, there is no uniformity in virtually any aspect of European elections. In most member states, including the UK, voters choose from a party list, whereas in other member states the single transferable vote is used. Voting ages vary as well, so there is no uniformity in these aspects of European elections. Artificially imposing the same election day would be problematic and, as I said, counter-productive.
	The Commission also proposes that national political parties make clear their affiliation to pan-European political parties. Again, the European Commission has disregarded the principle of subsidiarity. It is none of the Commission’s business how my party—the Labour party—or the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or others want to campaign in the European parliamentary elections. It is up to the respective national parties to decide how best to campaign in those elections. We strongly believe that it should be for national parties also to determine the content of their party broadcasts, without suggestions from the European Commission.
	There are some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. Have the Government informed the Commission of their concerns about the Commission’s suggestions, as set out in the motion? What is the Government’s view on how the Commission is likely to follow up these two documents? What is the view of the other European institutions—the European Parliament and the rest of the Council of Ministers?
	Increasing participation in European elections and improving the democratic legitimacy of the European Union are objectives that we share, but the proposals that we are debating today will not achieve that aim. They are counter-productive and ignore the fact that according to the principle of subsidiarity, member states and not the European Commission should have responsibility for administering elections within their borders. We agree, as the Minister set out, that national Parliaments should have a greater role and we congratulate the Foreign Secretary on adopting the proposal of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), for a red card system, which my right hon. Friend proposed in January this year. It took the Foreign Secretary a few months to come round to the idea, but
	we are glad that he is there. Such proposals should increase the democratic legitimacy of European Union decision making.
	We are therefore content to support the Government’s motion on the European Commission documents, and urge the Government to make the strongest possible representations to the Commission that these proposals should be taken no further.

Martin Horwood: Being asked to support a motion that takes note of a non-binding set of documents means that this is possibly the least controversial European debate that we have ever had in the House, and I am entirely happy to support the motion. I agree with quite a lot of what has been said by Members on both sides of the House. If the Commission’s proposals are trying to encourage engagement and involvement in European politics, they are missing the mark. That will never be transformed by prescribing the minutiae of voting days or even by talking about precisely how and when who suggests what candidate for posts in the Commission. We have a responsibility as politicians to address these issues, and perhaps to stop discussing endlessly the minutiae of treaties and referendums and such matters—banging on about Europe, as the Prime Minister once memorably put it—but focus on jobs, crime, the environment and all the important things that Europe has an impact on in our constituents’ lives, but that are rarely talked about in that context.
	The media also have some responsibility to report European politics and debate on such issues instead of constantly reporting Europe as if the only debates were about referendums and treaties. It is frustrating that in other European countries news programmes report debates on issues of substance in the European Parliament, which never seems to happen in this country.
	With regard to the specifics of the suggestions in the documents, on the voting day I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and others that there are huge practical problems with having a single voting day, and even more with having single voting times. We should be looking for more flexibility in voting as a possible contribution to higher turnouts, not lower, which these proposals seem to suggest. People lead busy lives, voting often is not their No. 1 priority on a particular day; that might be getting to and from work, getting the children to school or doing a million other things. I am sure we have all been in the situation of trying to persuade that one last voter to go out and vote, but finding that it is not quite as important to them as it is to us. Of course it is very important, and we are right to try to persuade people to turn out, but we need to make it easier, not more difficult.
	That might mean, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who is no longer in his place, suggested, looking at weekend voting, and, as used to happen, at elections taking place over several days. That was the tradition for hundreds of years in elections to the Westminster Parliament. It might mean encouraging more postal voting, making it generally more flexible and open, and not being quite so hung up about having an election on a particular day at a particular time. We might end up testing out having elections on a Saturday or Sunday, or both.

Kelvin Hopkins: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. If we had elections over two days at weekends, Jews could vote on Sunday and Christians could vote on Saturday, and solve the problem.

Martin Horwood: Absolutely. And Muslims could vote on both, and the election could start on Friday. We could be very flexible. Cultural traditions might also be relevant. The Commission’s proposal fails the basic subsidiarity test. This does not need to be mandated, therefore it should not be, and there seems to be wide agreement across the House on that.
	The proposals for the candidates for the presidency of the Commission are rather curious. I am proud to be a member of Cheltenham Liberal Democrats, of the Liberal Democrat party in the United Kingdom and of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and intensely proud to be a member of Liberal International, where Liberals are fighting for things that we take for granted at risk to their own lives in many parts of the world. I know that other parties have slightly more hang-ups about being members of European political parties and have had some difficulties in that regard, but the proposals as far as they go seem to be fairly unexceptional.
	The Commission’s proposals effectively talk about encouraging European political parties to nominate candidates, but actually they can already do that. A report by my colleague Andrew Duff, which the European Parliament will vote on at the start of July, goes rather further. It states that
	“the candidate for Commission President who was put forward by the European political party that wins the most seats in the Parliament will be the first to be considered”
	with a view to
	“ascertaining his/her ability to secure the support of the necessary absolute majority in Parliament”.
	That might be a legitimate and interesting way of interpreting article 17.7 of the treaty, but so long as they must only have regard to the candidate, the Councils of the European Union will not actually be obliged to choose that candidate or even to consider them in preference over others.
	We need to create a situation that encourages more involvement, openness and accountability, and in that respect I think that it would be good to have greater democratic involvement in the process of promoting and choosing candidates, so long as it does not mandate it, because I think that a slight constitutional issue would start to emerge if we drifted into the mandation of candidates by political parties. That would start to blur the line between who are the Governments and politicians and who are the civil servants, which is a line that we draw very carefully in this country. In a sense, the Commission is the equivalent of the civil service and the permanent secretaries. In many respects, it should be the impartial servant of the political will of the Parliament and of the people and Governments of Europe in the Councils. We can decide at some future stage—this is certainly not something I support now—whether to have a European Government, but we do not have one at the moment and that is not something we should start doing in an accidental, piecemeal way.
	I accept that there is a particular problem for the Conservatives on this issue. They belong to the fifth largest group in the Parliament—it feels rather good to
	say that—and the Liberal and Socialist groups are rather larger. I think it is a problem for the Conservatives that they are not represented in the mainstream conservative grouping, or Christian Democrat grouping, in the Parliament. I think that it was a regrettable decision by the British Conservatives not to take part in that, because I think it has reduced British political influence within the European political forum.

David Nuttall: I can assure my hon. Friend that not a single constituent of mine has ever expressed to me any dissatisfaction whatever with the position of the Conservatives in the European Parliament.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are not actually discussing the position of the Conservative party anywhere in Europe; we are discussing the documents before us today. You can talk about article 17.7, Mr Horwood, but let us not venture any further.

Martin Horwood: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The second point is that there is an expression of what I used to call the Thatcher doctrine, which is to complain about the lack of democracy in the European Union but oppose all practical steps to increase democratic accountability because that would be seen as giving more legitimacy to the European tier of government. I think that is a regrettable approach.

Emma Reynolds: With regard to the motion, which mentions European political parties and their freedom to support candidates for Commission President, does the hon. Gentleman stand by the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement that the group the Conservatives joined in the European Parliament was made up of “nutters, anti-Semites and homophobes”?

Martin Horwood: I think that we are trying to raise the tone of the debate and not to refer to things that were said in the heat of the moment. I think that the Thatcherite idea that we should not give more democratic legitimacy is quite a destructive way to approach the European level of government. I am in favour of more democracy, more openness and more accountability.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is always too tempting to fail to intervene on my hon. Friend’s speeches, but the point that Margaret Thatcher was making was that there was no demos and that therefore there could be no democratic legitimacy. The first principle of democratic legitimacy is to have a people who care about each other.

Martin Horwood: Yes, and I think the European people do actually care about each other. When I take part in the councils of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe—I am looking forward to this over the next few months as we move towards our London congress, which I am proud to have taking place in this very city—I care about the welfare of people outside the United Kingdom, and I think that other Europeans care about the welfare of this country as well.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: No, I will not; I really must draw my remarks to a conclusion.
	I believe that there is a European demos. It is expressed in the European elections, perhaps in a quite fragmented way, but it is none the less an expression of European political views by the people of Europe in perfectly democratic elections. It is right that a European Parliament elected in that way should play an increasing role in determining how the European Union functions. In increasing democracy, openness and accountability, these are reasonably uncontroversial proposals.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall just make the point that I was going to put to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) in an intervention. This idea about all Europeans caring about one another is fine—I love all my continental colleagues very much—but my identity is as a part of the British demos, not of a European demos, which I do not think exists. I think that was the point that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was making.
	I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who spoke extremely well. I agree with everything she said, even though there might be a smidgen of difference between our views on the European Union generally. Even more happily, we both seem to be in agreement with the Minister and the Government. That makes this a rare event, but a happy occasion.
	We must absolutely not have parties at European Union level. Even at national level, party elites are sometimes too far removed from their activists and their voters. Having party groupings at international level acting as parties would make the gap between the voters at the grass roots and those who govern us even greater. That would be completely unacceptable.
	Another problem involves finding political parties to bond with. The Conservatives have understandably had problems finding a home. If I were in their position, I would be happy to stand separately, but I know that that would create a problem of securing positions on committees and so on. So far as Labour is concerned, we could be linked with Pasok in Greece, yet Pasok is now cemented together with New Democracy and inflicting appalling austerity on the working people of that country. I do not want to be seen to be supporting Pasok in what it is now doing. It should be standing up for working people and against austerity. Indeed, that is what we should all be doing. We can have links and, occasionally, loose friendships with other parties when seeking convenient political groupings, but forming single political parties across Europe would be another step on the way to creating a state of Europe—which some people clearly want—with the Commission and perhaps the European Parliament forming the European Government. That would be a giant step in the wrong direction.
	Another giant step in that direction wasthe introduction of a system of proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East also mentioned this point. I have opposed such proposals before, and called in this Chamber for a return to first past the post and single Member constituencies. I hold to that position today. People would take the view that Europe was much more democratic if Members of the European
	Parliament represented a genuine constituency rather than an enormous region or even, in the case of Scotland and Wales, a country.
	I oppose PR. I have opposed PR proposals for our own elections in Britain and for those in the European Parliament. Sadly, it has been used as a means of getting rid of the Eurosceptic left from the European parliamentary Labour party. Some 50% of the party’s 60 members were wiped out simply by being placed lower down the list, when the list system came out. They disappeared en masse. That certainly damaged our party, and it was very disappointing for the wing of the party that I belong to.
	Another problem with the idea of having political parties at European level is that in many European countries there are two or three parties occupying the area that one party occupies in Britain. I recently visited Holland with the European Scrutiny Committee. It has a Socialist party and a Labour party whose Members sit next to each other, but in Britain they would easily be accommodated in our Labour party. If I were in Holland, it is conceivable that I would be in the Socialist party, but I would have to talk to them carefully about that.
	There is a democratic deficit and, much as I deplore much of what Mrs Thatcher did, I think she was right to say that if we give too much democratic legitimacy to the European Union, democracy will start to leach away from our own national Parliaments, which would not be good. I want to see the democratic deficit addressed by restoring powers to national Parliaments, particularly the British Parliament. I want to see the restoration of effective power to the grass roots, including within parties. I am sure that all parties want that, but I want to see it in my party in particular.

Martin Horwood: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that holding elections at different levels leaches democracy away from other levels, does he think that democracy leaches away from the national level as a result of local elections or elections in London, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

Kelvin Hopkins: I think that power ranges over different levels. Over recent years we have seen power leached away from local government towards central Government. Local government is far less powerful than it was when I was a councillor 40 years ago. We had an enormous degree of independence that is no longer given to local government. If we allow too much of what we govern to go to the EU, democracy will leach away from our national Parliament. This is about powers. I want to see effective powers restored to national Parliaments, including—I discussed these in the Chamber earlier—those of the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy.
	I also want first past the post, single Member constituencies and inner-party democracy in order to make sure that party activists, electors and ordinary people have real democratic power and feel that they have a stake in politics. If they do not feel that they have a stake, they might go elsewhere, which could be very dangerous and worrying for us all. When people feel that they can actually make a difference by being involved in politics and voting, that makes democracy meaningful. I would like to think that what we are suggesting today will help keep politics and democracy meaningful in Britain.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am usually very nervous when there is an outbreak of complete consensus across the House. It is usually a sign that we are all getting things wrong together, but I think that this occasion is the exception that proves the rule. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and, amazingly enough, the Lord High Almoner of pro-Europeanism, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that when I was a candidate in the Cities of London and Westminster I was once described as the Eurosceptic wing of the Liberal Democrats. I think the implication was that it was not very big.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend has been led down the path of temptation towards pro-Europeanism since he stood in the two cities.
	We have heard a remarkable outbreak of consensus, which is important and is why the European Scrutiny Committee wanted the document debated. One of the things we learn from the processes of the European Union, particularly those of the Commission, is that things start at an early stage with a little document that has no legal force and is there for a general, genteel discussion. Nobody says very much about it, so the Commission assumes that there cannot be very much opposition to what is being proposed and that it is perfectly reasonable and achieving consensus. Then the document gets hardened up into a proposal and then into a directive or a regulation, and before we know where we are we are opposing a fully fledged, fully formed idea, which is, of course, much harder to do than when things are at an early stage, when the Commission can back down without significant loss of face and there has been no momentum in favour of the proposals.
	I would caution us, none the less, against being too complacent about what the Commission may do next, because it has a treaty base—it is set out in the ESC report—for some of its proposals. The Minister has covered this, but article 10(4) of the treaty on European union says:
	“Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens”.
	The importance of a treaty base is that it gives the Commission the ability to bring forward proposals. Once it has the treaty base, although it may appear not to apply on a simple first reading, it can be used, it is justiciable before the European Court of Justice and it fits into the general European approach of centralising powers.
	As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am particularly concerned about article 17(7) of the treaty on European Union, which speaks of
	“Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament”.
	What the European Commission is trying to do—its own paper sets this out more clearly—is to establish the European Parliament as that which gives democratic legitimacy to the European Union. I contest that fundamentally. What gives democratic legitimacy to British involvement in the European Union is the European Communities Act 1972 and the sovereign will of this
	Parliament—a sovereign will that can be changed. I am therefore strongly opposed to the developing European theory that it is the European Parliament that is the basis of democratic legitimacy.
	I would suggest that democratic legitimacy within Europe as it is currently constructed, based on the 1972 Act, lies with the Council of Ministers, because those Ministers are responsible to their sovereign Parliaments and have to report to them on what they have done. The paper from the Commission does not take that into account. Indeed, it tries to establish a new basis for the democratic legitimacy of the European Union.
	If that view won widespread acceptance across member states, the question would arise as to whether our initial acceptance of powers for the European Union through the 1972 Act was still the basis of our membership or whether it had devolved to the new democratic structure set up by the European Commission and to the European Parliament. The Commission’s paper points strongly in that direction. Page 11 of the documents that we are discussing states:
	“The role of the European Parliament as the representative democratic assembly of the Union has been underscored by the Lisbon Treaty.”
	The same page speaks of
	“the new definition of members of the European Parliament as ‘representatives of the Union’s citizens’ and not simply as ‘representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community’.”
	Even a straight reading of that shows the ambition of the Commission to build political validity through the European Parliament, which of course requires single European parties.
	I am strongly opposed to single European parties, partly because if I put myself up in North East Somerset as representing the Conservative and Unionist party, plus a random collection of European parties, it would not help me, but also because it discriminates against parties that are very focused on their national interest. I was thinking about UKIP and what acronyms we might get if it coalesced with other parties across the continent. There would be FIP in France, DIP in Germany, HIP in Holland and GIP in Greece—GIP might be particularly appropriate in Greece. There would be a discrimination against parties that are particularly focused on the interests of their nation if we went down the route of what the European Commission proposes.
	I am arguing that there is a fundamental flaw in the European Commission’s paper. That flaw is the idea that the European Parliament can be or is the body of democratic legitimacy for the European Union. By pushing that view, the Commission delegitimises national Parliaments and tries to accrete powers to itself, for example through the proposal on political parties, to promote its own view. It is therefore a matter for rejoicing, once again, on Waterloo day that there is such unanimity across the parties in this House. I hope that in two years’ time, when we have a full celebration of the 200th anniversary of Waterloo, funded by the Treasury, we will be safe and clear from aggressive Commission documents that try to steal powers from the British subject.

David Lidington: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I do not want to detain the House long, so I will try to reply briefly to the
	various questions raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) asked how funding from European political parties and other EU sources might influence domestic election campaigns in the United Kingdom. I want to place on the record that participation in elections in this country, including European elections, is regulated by UK electoral law, and that includes the use of funding in campaigns. United Kingdom law prohibits the use of funding from sources outside the UK, including European political party funding. A prohibition on the use of EU funding by national political parties is included in the draft new European political party proposals—those are other EU documents that the House considered in Committee a few days ago.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked whether the Commission is aware of the Government’s concerns about its communication, and the answer is a definite yes. Our—I was going to say reservation, but I think it is rather stronger than that. Our belief that the initiatives are simply misplaced and will not contribute to resolving the acknowledged democratic deficit of the European Union is well known, and United Kingdom officials and Ministers will continue to express their views on that in any future debates.
	The hon. Lady asked about the position of the European Parliament, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, the AFCO committee of the European Parliament has produced a report that covers much the same area of policy as that addressed by the Commission’s communication and recommendations. Like the Commission documents, that report points towards a greater role for European political parties and the European Parliament in determining the successor to President Barroso in the Commission. The plenary Session of the European Parliament is due to debate and vote on the report next month, and I cannot predict how it will vote on that occasion.
	The hon. Lady’s final question concerned what future Commission initiatives we expect to follow up the proposals. At the moment, there is no sign that the Commission plans to go further than its published recommendations, and the Government’s view is that the longer that remains the case, the better. We do not think that the recommendations add anything to the democratic problems that Europe faces.
	I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) about articles 10(4) and 17(7) of the treaty on the European union. The full text of those articles contains a number of statements about how the European Union should organise its business, but there is no provision for the Commission to bring forward legislation and put it to the Council or Parliament. I would contrast that with the provisions in article 223(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, to which I referred earlier. That provides for changes to the law to be initiated by the Commission, and to be subject to the unanimous agreement of all member states. The enabling power for new legislation is not included in the text of articles 10 and 17, and that is why I said that the only way it would be possible to impose a mandate on the European Council to limit its nominations for President of the European Commission to lead candidates nominated by European political parties, or even to the lead candidate of the leading party after a European election, would be
	through the mechanism of treaty change. As my hon. Friend probably knows as well as anyone else in the House, that would require a process and certainly the unanimous agreement of every member state, and have national ratifications.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My question might be too hypothetical, but if the Council puts forward somebody who has never been associated with a political party, would that be challengeable in the European Court of Justice?

David Lidington: In theory, anything is challengeable, in the same way that almost any Executive decision in this country is challengeable under judicial review. Our view is that the duty on the European Council is no more and no less than that provided in article 17(7), which is to have regard to the outcome of the European Parliament elections and engage in the appropriate consultations. If the intention of the authors of the TEU had been a mandate, it would be spelled out in the wording of the treaty. My hon. Friend is right that there is an ambition on the part of a number of people in the Commission and the European Parliament not to seek treaty change—not at the moment, at least—but to bring about a working assumption that national Governments assembled in the European Council should limit themselves in the way they wish. As I have said, we strongly resist that assumption.
	I conclude on this point. We have a set of recommendations that are not legally binding, and there is currently no suggestion of legislative proposals from the Commission to give effect to its recommendations. Any such legislative proposals would need the unanimous agreement of every member state, under whichever treaty article they are brought forward. I believe—this was the view on both sides of the House—that the recommendations are fundamentally misplaced. There is a serious problem across the EU, with public disaffection with the EU and how its decisions are taken rising to record levels. We have seen that reflected in part in the rise of populist parties—some democratic, some undemocratic and neo-fascist—in many different EU countries. For that real problem to be addressed, the EU needs to show in its priorities that it is focused on those things that really matter to the prosperity and security of the peoples of Europe. The arrangements by which the EU takes decisions needs to be reformed in a way that gives greater influence and authority to national Parliaments, to which Heads of Government and Ministers in the Council are ultimately accountable.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7648/13, a Commission Communication on preparing for the 2014 European elections and enhancing their democratic and efficient conduct, and No. 7650/13, a Commission Recommendation on enhancing the democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament; notes that whilst European political parties are free to support candidates for Commission President, this does not limit the European Council’s selection of a candidate; agrees with the Government that the suggestion for a common voting day across the EU is unhelpful and would achieve the opposite of the stated intention of increasing voter turnout; and further notes that there is currently no indication that these documents are going to be followed up by formal legislative proposals.

Backbench Business

Sudan and South Sudan

Mark Durkan: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the Government’s role in supporting peace and development in Sudan and South Sudan.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its decision to grant a request that I and several other hon. Members made to ensure that the House had an overdue debate on Sudan and South Sudan. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and I went before the Committee last week, and although some of the other dozen hon. Members who had supported the petition were unable to attend because of their involvement in debates in the Chamber or in Committee business, we were successful in arranging the debate for an earlier date than we had reckoned.

Tom Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on securing the debate. United Nations resolution 1591 was passed in 2005, and its intentions were clear. Is it not despicable that the international community still has not responded to them?

Mark Durkan: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support in securing this debate and I absolutely accept his point. Signals given by the international community, and promises made in various peace agreements by those in Sudan and South Sudan, were not always followed through. It is important that we take time to address this issue in the Chamber.
	The previous debate on Sudan and South Sudan took place in spring 2011, in the countdown to South Sudan’s independence. At that time, there was some hope about the new country’s prospects. There was hope that more of the comprehensive peace agreement would come to fruition if it had a framework or context in which to work. The hopes and goodwill of NGOs and others in the international community were tragically dashed. The effect on the lives of so many people in both countries was cruel.
	We sought this debate because we are coming up to the second anniversary of South Sudan’s independence and because we recently marked the tenth anniversary of the conflict in Darfur. Hon. Members from all parties wrote to the Foreign Secretary, the US Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister to raise concerns about policy drift on Darfur. Perhaps we have been remiss as parliamentarians in not addressing this issue in this Chamber, but we know why that has happened. Other events have caught our attention: the Arab spring and its complex aftermath and the situations in Mali and Syria have taken our focus. The danger is that the international community is giving a signal that what is happening in Darfur is par for the course and there is not a lot more that we can do about it beyond the commitments we have previously made.

Bob Stewart: The sadness is that this situation has been going on for so long. Some 20 years ago, my wife worked in southern Sudan for the International Committee of the Red Cross, and it was a
	basket case then. It is about time the world got together and sorted out this dreadful situation, so that the people there can live peacefully and bring up their children properly.

Mark Durkan: I recognise the passion of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and that is exactly why this debate is necessary. There is a danger that because South Sudan has been established, we think it can make its merry way forward, but it is a fragile state—the world’s youngest. It lacks serious governmental and administrative infrastructure, and there is a gross disparity in the position of women and girls in its society. For decades now, these people have suffered from the effects of conflict, and they are still suffering. Even now, seven of the 10 states in South Sudan display features of conflict and the depredations that come with it.

Tony Cunningham: I recognise that this is a political debate with a Foreign Office lead, but does my hon. Friend not agree that there is still a huge humanitarian crisis in the area too?

Mark Durkan: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says—of course there is a humanitarian crisis, as I think many other hon. Members will also emphasise.
	Since the fact of this debate was published, I have been struck by how many of us have been contacted by non-governmental organisations, which have provided urgent briefings and said how glad they are that we are having this debate. It is particularly telling that some of them said, “You cannot give out the locality-specific information that we are giving to you, because it could be traced back to us and compromise NGO operatives and associates in particular regions.” Their nervousness about being named and about their briefings being traced speaks volumes about the situation and their bravery and good work.
	These NGOs do not take the side of particular political interests; theirs is purely a humanitarian effort, and like the Government—I know that we will hear from the Minister later—they welcome and encourage any positive steps, whether in the relationship between Sudan and South Sudan or towards improving conditions in the two countries. They are also clear about the risks and about the trespasses against human rights and humanitarian standards that take place all too frequently and are seemingly met with indifference. In Darfur, for instance, the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur has recently seemed to be saying, “Well, because there has been statistical easement in some features of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, we should treat that as though the crisis is ending,” but clearly it is not ending. Even when there are statistical easements, factors and circumstances change, whether it is factors of conflict or seasonal factors or other trepidations that interfere with the situation, and as a result, people find themselves in an ever graver plight, so we cannot act like this is done and dusted on the basis of comprehensive peace agreements that are given only faltering acknowledgment.
	I hope that the Minister will explain not only how engaged the British Government are with the political interests in both countries, but how much support they are giving to, and how engaged they are with, the various NGOs. I hope that he will also indicate how well the UK engagement effort works with that of the EU,
	given that the EU is the single biggest donor in the area, and respond to questions about the UN’s role. Given the misgivings about the UN’s action and the lack of reportage and serious monitoring in Sri Lanka, fundamental questions remain about UNAMID’s competence and sense of purpose in Darfur, where it does not report every transgression with equal seriousness.

Tom Clarke: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. When he refers to agencies, including the United Nations agencies, does he agree that UNAMID falls short of its mandate of civilian protection and that many people have suffered because of that?

Mark Durkan: I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have all heard UNAMID described as the most expensive and least effective peacekeeping operation in the history of the world. UNAMID stands indicted, but if we do not seek to address and ameliorate that in some way, we, too, will stand indicted as parliamentarians.
	The range of issues that can be addressed in this debate, and certainly the range of issues that have reached us in briefings from non-governmental organisations, is wide, but those issues also run deep. I do not intend to rehearse them all in opening this debate; the main point is to allow other Members to reflect those points and concerns, as well as the fact that, from time to time, there are indications of hope from these regions. That happens not just when we see flickering developments—all too often cancelled out later—in political engagement, dialogue, talks, deals on oil flows, and so on, but in relation to the potential to build and improve capacity in both countries. However, the key to that is overcoming the difficulties of conflict and all the preoccupations, the distractions and the depletion of resources and potential that conflict represents. That is why the international community owes more than just humanitarian support to the people of these two countries.

William Bain: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which we can diminish the conflict between South Sudan and Sudan is to implement in full the oil agreement signed last September? Is he aware that last year, when the rest of sub-Saharan Africa was seeing annual GDP growth of between 5% and 6%, GDP fell by 55% in South Sudan and by nearly 1% in Sudan? Is that not what is driving the continued problems between both states and leading to some of the health and education indicators we are seeing?

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is right. He has great insight into both countries, given that he so ably chairs the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan. He rightly points to some of the declining profiles for South Sudan. I have many statistics on the social experience in Sudan and economic conditions. I do not intend to turn my opening speech into a presentation of the grave statistics on both countries, but some useful contributions can be made in this debate by a number of hon. Members.
	When we look at both countries, it is important not only to look at them together in their historical and regional context, given some of the issues of conflict,
	but to look at them in their own right and, in particular, at the people of each country in their own right. I have referred to Darfur, but it is not the only place in Sudan where we see violence waged by the Government of Sudan against their own citizens. Only last week—I am sure other hon. Members will refer to this—we had a chilling report from Amnesty International entitled “We had no time to bury them”, which highlighted war crimes in Sudan’s Blue Nile state. That report, based on extensive interviews—where Amnesty International could conduct them—satellite images and the examination of various records, mounts a devastating critique of what the Sudanese Government have been able to do against their own people. That follows the pattern we saw in Darfur, although it is not confined to the Blue Nile state, but can be found in South Kordofan as well.
	That gives rise to the obvious question that many people ask: how is it that we appear to be maintaining lines of engagement and agreeing aid packages, as part of multilateral rounds, with the Government in Sudan—because we want to help the people of Darfur—in ways that do not chime with our attitude to the behaviour of the former Libyan regime or the current Syrian regime or our attitude in other similar circumstances? I understand why the Government make their commitment alongside others, for instance, in the context of the Doha conference earlier this year. I know, however, that this House has heard from Darfurians who basically say that this is rewarding ethnic cleansing and doing nothing for victims. They fear that some of those moneys could end up being used by that same Government to further their violence against their own civilians. I am not saying that that is absolutely so or that there are no guarantees or measures to prevent or proof against that risk, but it is a risk that is genuinely felt. We have heard it genuinely expressed here within the precincts of this House, so I hope that the Minister will, as well as responding to questions from hon. Members, address those questions that come naturally from concerned citizens in Sudan and South Sudan.
	I want to allow other hon. Members to speak. I am sure that they will cover the other points I would have made, and I look forward to hearing them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have six speakers and about one hour’s time, so I suggest Members try to take that into account when they speak.

Stephen Mosley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on securing the debate and also on the good points that he made. I heard another Member saying that this was a political debate; it is a political debate, but I say as a Conservative Member that I agreed with everything the hon. Gentleman said. He is quite right: it is two years since we last debated Sudan, when we held a Westminster Hall debate in the spring of 2011. At that time, the comprehensive peace agreement was being implemented. We were seeing the end of a 22-year civil war that had killed 2 million people, with 4 million people having left their homes.
	January 2011 saw a successful referendum in South Sudan, with 98.8% of the population voting in favour of independence.
	Some concerns were expressed in our debate—over the future of Abyei, for example, where the referendum had been cancelled and postponed. There were concerns over South Kordofan and the Blue Nile state, as public consultations on the future of those two states were meant to take place, but had not happened. Then, too, the ongoing conflict in Darfur was at the forefront of our minds. On the whole, however, hope and optimism for the future were expressed in that debate. There was a belief that the independence of South Sudan would mean a new beginning for both north and South Sudan at that time.
	I saw that myself when I visited Khartoum in June 2011. At this point, I should mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which records my visit. This was a few weeks before South Sudan gained independence, and while we were there, we met Government Ministers, people from the National Congress party, embassy staff, Department for International Development staff, local businesses and representatives of the local Coptic church. When we met those people, we noted a huge amount of hope for the future. It was believed that 9 July 2011 would mean a new beginning for both Sudan and South Sudan.
	One thing we picked up while we were there, and which particularly relevant to this Parliament, was the high regard many people had for the United Kingdom. We were shocked to hear that the majority of cabinet members in Sudan were, despite all the problems, either educated in the UK or held British passports. There was an immense well of good will towards the UK and a huge desire among all the people we spoke to to increase links, trade and investment with us. There was a big will for Britain to get more involved in Sudan.
	It is now, of course, two years since South Sudan got its independence, but I am afraid to say that many of the hopes we had two years ago have been dashed. Both Sudan and South Sudan are considered to be fragile states. Both countries face terrible humanitarian and development challenges, and the indicators are some of the worst in the world. It is 10 years since the start of the conflict in Darfur, and there is still no end in sight. Concerns remain about the Khartoum Government and their refusal to negotiate, comply with international law, and cease violence.
	When I was preparing for the debate over the weekend, I read some newspaper articles about Sudan. Three of them jumped out at me immediately. I want to tell the House about them, because they give an impression of what is happening out there at the moment.
	It was a tweet from the Minister that drew my attention to the first item. It concerned the shelling of a United Nations base which killed an Ethiopian peacekeeper and injured two more. It took place in Kadugli, in South Kordofan, and is thought to have been the work of fighters from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North—SPLM-N—supported by South Sudan. The UN does not have a mission in South Kordofan, but it has one in Abyei, and the base was being used as a supply depot for that.
	The article suggested that the rebels were targeting a football ground, as a football tournament was due to begin there today, but, as always in Sudan, it is not clear who was responsible. The UN Security Council and the Secretary General have condemned the attack and called on Sudan to bring the perpetrators to justice, but we do not know who those perpetrators are. It is assumed that they are members of SPLM-N, but we do not know for certain.
	The second news item was about an oil pipeline that had been attacked in Abyei. In this case, the Sudan Government blame the South Sudan-backed rebels, but both the rebels and South Sudan deny responsibility. The attack came just days after Sudan had announced a further blockade of South Sudanese oil, which is due to begin in six weeks’ time. We heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) that an agreement had been reached last autumn to allow oil to flow through the pipeline in Sudan, but that agreement now seems to have broken down, and within six weeks the embargo will be reinstated.

William Bain: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a powerful and convincing argument. Does he agree that both states will be harmed by the shutting down of oil production, and that the hardship will be felt not just in Juba but in Khartoum? Does he also agree that we need a comprehensive agreement in relation to the disputed territories, and, in particular, a final resolution, through a referendum, of the future status of Abyei?

Stephen Mosley: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the importance of oil in the relationship between Sudan and South Sudan is clear to all of us. Approximately 75% of the oil reserves are in South Sudan, and approximately 25% are in north Sudan. The South Sudanese Government are particularly dependent on oil revenues for their taxation income—I have heard that as much as 98% of South Sudan’s income derives from oil—but any measures that impede the flow of oil affect not just South Sudan but Sudan. They affect the oilfields on the northern side of the border. We must recognise that oil has a huge part to play, and ensure that any agreements that are reached to deliver permanent peace deliver a solution to the oil problems as well.
	The third news story related to Jonglei, one of the states in South Sudan. Apparently, South Sudanese Government forces were blocking aid for 120,000 people who had fled to Jonglei to escape ethnic fighting. It is estimated that seven of the 10 South Sudanese states are currently in turmoil, and that fighting is taking place there.

Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is making a very well-informed and lucid speech. He has referred to events over the weekend, but is he aware that, as recently as last Sunday, an aerial attack carried out by the Sudanese air force on a village in Darfur killed a mother and her two children, aged five and seven? Sadly, the situation is ongoing.

Stephen Mosley: The question of aerial bombardment features large across all the problem areas in Sudan. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned the situation in Blue Nile state, and there have been regular bombing incidents in South Kordofan and Darfur.
	The Sudanese Government are also laying landmines, which is another concern. Both those things are contrary to international conventions, and both of them are classified as war crimes: deliberately targeting civilians is classified as a war crime. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that four members of the Sudanese Government, including President Omar al-Bashir, are wanted by the international courts on war crime charges.
	I would put South Sudan’s problems into two categories: they involve the relationship between South Sudan and north Sudan, but they also involve the internal problems facing South Sudan. There are many unresolved issues between Juba and Khartoum at present. We have talked about oil, so I will not dwell on that subject. There are also the problems over South Kordofan and Blue Nile, and the questions about their future. There was meant to be a consultation on the future of those two states, but it has not happened.
	We have for years been promised a referendum in Abyei, so people in Abyei can decide whether they want to be part of the south or the north. Because many of the farmers in that area are migratory, there has been wrangling over the electoral roll for years; no decision can be reached, so there can be no agreement on a referendum. We have been promised that there will be a referendum this autumn, but we have been promised a referendum before, so we will have to wait and see whether it takes place.
	There are also issues about support for rebel groups. Both the Sudanese Government and the South Sudanese Government are supporting rebel groups in each other’s territory. There are issues to do with the migration paths of pastoralists, too, who travel across the border on a seasonal basis. There are not just cross-border issues, however. South Sudan faces internal problems. There is conflict in seven of the 10 South Sudanese states. There is ethnic and tribal violence. South Sudan is not an elected democracy. Broad powers are given to the Executive, and we see high levels of corruption.
	There is also a huge problem of lack of state capacity and infrastructure. South Sudan is one of the hardest places in the world to reach, and once there, it is incredibly difficult to travel about the country and reach some of the more isolated states.

Bob Stewart: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. My wife was a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross in South Sudan. Indeed, she was taken hostage there by rebel groups. She set up a camp from scratch for 100,000 people. She firmly believes that one of the problems now is that we have set up these camps in inhospitable places, where we have to resupply them and keep them going. By doing that, we have caused a problem in an area that cannot sustain such a large population. These camps attract people. Hard as it would have been, perhaps we should not have done so much.

Stephen Mosley: I do not know that I agree with that, but my hon. Friend is right that many of the camps are very isolated and difficult to reach. There is some good news, however. A new camp has recently been completed at Ajoung Thok, and it has a very good reputation. The agencies are gradually moving people there from more isolated camps. They can supply them with food and water there, and allow them to start making the long-term
	decisions that will enable them to set down roots and start to develop livelihoods in those areas, because that is also a problem with humanitarian aid, and we have faced it in Sudan in the past. People are quick to supply food and emergency aid, but we are not so quick in providing more long-term solutions that allow people to survive and live on their own over time.
	The hon. Member for Foyle mentioned non-governmental organisations, and while preparing for this debate we met representatives of a number of them. Normally when we speak to NGOs, we find that they are desperate for MPs to stand up in this Chamber to sing their praises and tell Members of this House about the good work they are doing. On Sudan and South Sudan the NGOs deliberately said, “No, we don’t want you to say what we’re doing. We don’t want you to say where we are doing it.” They face so many problems that they are afraid that if they highlight their situation, they may face repercussions. They have told us that they already face restrictions on visas, and the cost of permits is going through the roof. They are finding that it is becoming more restrictive to operate in both Sudan and South Sudan, and they asked us to make sure that when we talk about their situation, we talk in general terms rather than in specifics.
	What we do know is that 1 million people remain displaced by the fighting, with more than 300,000 having been displaced since January—that is more than for the whole of last year. The problems in Sudan and South Sudan have not gone away; they are in a real mess. There is continued armed conflict and human rights abuse, and hundreds of thousands of people have fled and are living in camps.
	This is a debate on the UK Government’s response to Sudan, so I wish briefly to mention the Sudan Humanitarian Assistance and Resilience Programme—SHARP—which the Department for International Development is running. The idea is to spend £67 million over three years, with half of that being in Darfur and the rest in the Blue Nile and South Kordofan states. The idea is to build household and community resilience, and to allow people to move on from aid dependence. It is a long-term project, and I congratulate the Minister and the Department on the work they are doing to ensure long-term success.
	Sudan and South Sudan are not a problem that can be solved on its own by this country or by themselves; it needs all the international community to work together to help resolve the conflicts they face.

Mark Lazarowicz: First, I congratulate the hon. Members responsible for securing today’s debate and ensuring that these issues were debated in this Chamber. I hope to take only a few minutes, because other hon. Members are experts on this area and I am most certainly not. However, I wish to put on the record my concerns and, as these have also been expressed to me by many constituents, it is good to have the opportunity to do so.
	As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) pointed out, Sudan and South Sudan is very much an area of the world where because some progress appears to have been made, the problem appears to have been solved—we know it has not been—and the world’s attention has
	focused elsewhere; the world moves on and we pay attention to other crises. Although positive steps have clearly been taken in the establishment of South Sudan, the problem has not gone away. Nobody expected that South Sudan’s independence would suddenly solve the problems overnight, but all of us would probably not have expected such a deterioration in the situation since independence. Plenty of fighting is going on. We recognise that a full-scale war is not—we hope—on the agenda, but the deterioration of the situation is such that all sorts of crises will develop or get worse. Perhaps this has been a classic example of how it is always easy to start wars in different parts of the world but very hard to end them and solve the underlying difficulties.
	Hon. Members have given examples of the problems. One is clearly the failure to ensure that the peace agreement reached in Ethiopia was implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) pointed out, another is that the income levels of people in South Sudan have dropped, whereas those in the rest of Africa are increasing. That reflects the failure to resolve the issues concerning oil, which, as he pointed out, affect both South Sudan and Sudan. South Sudan could be one of the richest countries in Africa if the oil was being allowed to flow. So a resolution of that problem is important for all sides.
	We have heard about the fighting, not just on both sides of, and across, the border between Sudan and South Sudan but within South Sudan, as well about the conflict and, to put it bluntly, repression continuing in Darfur. There are the issues with refugees and displaced persons to which the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) referred, as well as problems with the lack of free media and with the ability of NGOs to operate, which occur on both sides of the border. There are also issues with weaknesses in civil governance and, in many respects, worse than weaknesses as regards freedom in both countries. Food shortages are increasingly a problem in many parts of both countries. The ongoing problem persists in Darfur and we have not solved it 10 years on—in many ways, we have not moved forward. We continue to see repression and fighting. The responsibility does not lie in only one place, but clearly we know where the main responsibility lies.
	I want to highlight, in keeping with the theme of the debate, what the UK can do to try to move matters in a more positive direction and I want to ask the Minister a number of questions about how the UK will continue to play a role. Many Members have mentioned the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur. Clearly, its weaknesses are extreme and its mandate needs to be strengthened. We need more than that and I would be interested to know the UK Government’s view on how it can be taken forward.
	The weaknesses of UNAMID also reflect the weaknesses in capacity of the UN and the African Union in the area. Much is made of the AU and of its weaknesses, but we should not forget that we increasingly expect it to play a major role in a number of different areas of conflict in Africa. It is involved in Mali, the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia. Crises are developing in other areas. The situation is increasingly worrying in sub-Saharan Africa and, as the Minister will be aware, in the Central African Republic.
	Donor fatigue is also an issue. Countries are not pledging the money that is needed or that has been promised. The UK has been good in that respect, but other countries have not, and I would be interested to know the Minister’s perspective on that.

William Bain: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which the UK Government could continue to have a positive impact on both states would be to retain the Sudan unit? It was founded by our right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and it brings together the development, humanitarian and diplomatic functions of the UK Government in relation to both states. Would it not be a good idea in terms of aims such as expanding smallholder agriculture and empowering women in both states if we were able to retain the Sudan unit well into the future?

Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely. That brings me to my final point: although it is important to deal with the immediate, pressing crisis, we need to try to consider ways of establishing security for the long term. One important way of providing security as well as peace settlements that stand the test of time is to ensure that there is food security. That tackles some of the immediate crises affecting the community and, by removing some of them, relieves some of the pressure on Government.
	The UK Government have taken the lead in many areas. They cannot solve all the problems themselves—no one ever suggested they should—but I would certainly like to know what the UK Government intend to do to take the situation forward, given the increasingly serious situation in many parts of Sudan and South Sudan.

Pauline Latham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on securing the debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). South Sudan and Sudan are very important areas in Africa and when South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011, the hopes of the world were there. Everybody thought it would work, albeit with many difficulties, including having to build a nation from scratch. Unfortunately, they are in a desperate situation. I visited the region with the Select Committee on International Development and our report shows a lot of the problems that there are.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said, one cannot get about in South Sudan. One has to fly from one place to another, which is fine for us westerners going in, but impossible for the local population. There are about 15 km of made-up road in the whole country, which makes nonsense of local people trying to get anywhere.
	So many people have been sent back from Khartoum even though they have lived there for generations. Because their origins are in South Sudan, they have been told that they are South Sudanese and they must return to their own country. However, the people who came from Khartoum and the surrounding areas spoke only Arabic. They may be well qualified—for example, as doctors or engineers. They had a wealth of western-style qualifications, but when they got back to South Sudan—they had never been there, neither had their parents or, in some cases, their grandparents, but they were classified as South Sudanese—they could not converse with the
	local people, who speak English as well as their own local language. So there was no way that those people, who were well qualified, could get jobs.
	Those arriving in South Sudan had no homes to go to. They were put into camps, where there were no latrines. In the camp that we visited, there was open defecation, which is appalling, given that the area that we went to is often flooded. All the open defecation would then flood through the camp. The worry for the mothers of the children—some of the children had travelled with them and some had been born in the camp since they arrived—was that as there were no latrines, they had to go out quite a long way from the camp to be able to go to the toilet, which meant that they were frightened for their safety.
	We, the UN and all the international agencies have a responsibility, when building camps, to provide latrines where children and women in particular can feel safe to go. None of that has happened in South Sudan. It must happen there and everywhere that camps are built; otherwise there will be rape and violence against women, girls and children, which is totally unacceptable.
	There was no education going on for the people who had come back, so they could not even learn the local languages. They had no jobs to go to. Some of the people we met had been in the camp for nine months and had not even seen a doctor. One girl I spoke to had some form of chest infection. She was coughing badly, but she had had no access to any medical professional of any sort since she had been there. She had caught the chest infection or whatever it was on the march back, because the people had had to walk much of the way back to South Sudan. I keep saying “back” but of course it is not their home: they were born and brought up in Khartoum, but they had had to go to their place of origin.
	It seemed to me that these people were being totally disadvantaged because the Sudanese Government had said, “We want everybody out.” It is still happening. We saw areas where the troops were and where there had been problems. We had to be very careful. The civil war that has been going on for generations in what had originally been Sudan has not stopped. We have heard today that there is no cessation to the civil war.
	The humanitarian and development challenges in South Sudan remain and will continue for some time to come. We went there last year, but this year there are still people stranded at railway stations. Some 40,000 people remain stranded in open areas around Khartoum because they cannot get to South Sudan. A further 3,500 people have been stranded at Kosti railway station in White Nile state for more than 15 months. GDP is rising in other African countries by between 5% and 7%, but here it is bound to go down when such numbers cannot contribute to the country’s economic well-being.

James Duddridge: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for international development. Far too often these trips are talked down, but clearly it is incredibly valuable to go there and speak from the heart and about the reality of what has happened. Much to my shame, I have not read the detail of the report. I would be interested in an analysis of its recommendations and to what degree the Government have already been able to respond and take action.

Pauline Latham: The Government are doing a lot of hard work and are working on the report’s recommendations. I do not have the report with me so I cannot go into the detail of each individual recommendation, but the coalition Government are working hard to alleviate the problems in South Sudan, and DFID is doing a lot of work in the Blue Nile area and South Kordofan. DFID is doing a huge amount of work with women and girls to make their lives much better. DFID is keen to promote the well-being and safety of women and girls, which have not been priorities for the Sudanese and South Sudanese Governments. The previous Secretary of State for International Development sent a huge number of textbooks to the schools, but when we returned from South Sudan we met its Education Minister, who said that it was great to get the textbooks, but it does not have the buildings or teachers to put them to use. Not just the children but the adults coming from the north into South Sudan need education so that they can get jobs and be economically active. Often they are skilled people, having lived a western lifestyle, but they cannot function if they cannot speak the language. As we all know, the older one gets, the longer it takes to learn a language, although being immersed in it makes it much easier.
	I strongly believe that South Sudan could still be a success if the fighting stopped. I do not believe that the UN is doing as good a job as it could. It could work much harder to reduce the conflict and to work with the people in the area to make sure that they are safe and feel safe. It is important that the oil flow continues, because with the oil will come prosperity. Both the north and the south can be prosperous. They need that income to be able to build South Sudan, which is a beautiful country and needs investment for people to survive. It needs roads, schools, and hospitals and medical care. There are very few, and what there are are very poor. The north of the country, as it was when it was united, has starved South Sudan of resources. In Khartoum and in the north it is great, but in the south no one has anything. Our Government are working hard to help and mediation work is going on, but we need to ensure that the south can build and renew itself and become a proper functioning country. Until then, and until the violence and war end, it will never succeed. It could succeed, but we will need to work very hard to provide all those services. Our Government are providing a lot, as are other Governments, but that needs to continue for some time to come.

Jim Shannon: It is an absolute pleasure to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing it and the Backbench Business Committee on giving the House an opportunity to state its commitment to the democratic process in Sudan and South Sudan. Like the other Members who have spoken, I am very interested in peace and development in both countries. It is essential that the British Government do everything in their power to apply diplomatic pressure and to offer practical help in order to see true peace and development in both countries.
	Those Members who have heard me speak about Sudan before will know of my concern—it remains—about the persecution of Christians and how that relates to the development of those countries. Members have
	spoken about many issues relating to the conflict, such as the need for education, health, schooling, hospitals, better roads, jobs and so on, and the humanitarian needs. Those are all important, but we must also consider the persecution of Christians. Last month I read an interesting report, and I have been waiting for the appropriate time to bring it to Members’ attention. Now is that time.
	Oil is the critical factor, as other Members have said. We are well aware of the impact oil can have and what it can lead to, so we know how important it is for Sudan and South Sudan. Last February I had the opportunity to visit Kenya with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and to meet some of those involved in eastern Africa and to hear the political overtures being made there. Many thought that the way to address the issue might be to take an oil pipeline through Kenya, but it was apparent from the discussions we had, and from the political point of view and that of the army, that Kenya seemed reluctant to do that.
	The defeat of the Sudanese army in a battle with rebel forces last month prompted concerns that the Government will retaliate by increasing their already intense pressure on the country’s minority Christians. That cannot be allowed to happen. Sudan’s Minister for guidance and endowments, Al-Fatih Taj El-sir, announced in April that no new licences for building churches would be issued—I hope that we never have to appoint a Minister for guidance and endowments in this place, because it would be a sad day if we came to that. The Minister explained the decision by claiming that no new churches had been established since South Sudan’s secession in July 2011. That was due, in his opinion, to a lack of worshippers and a growth in the number of abandoned church buildings. The reason was that most of those people were being repatriated to South Sudan. He said that there was no need for any new churches. He also said that freedom to worship is guaranteed in Sudan, but quite clearly it is not.
	Missionaries from my constituency are working in Sudan, and I have been made aware, through their church, of some of the things happening there. There is a real need for the Government to address the issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to do that in his winding-up speech. Days before that announcement, the Catholic Information Service for Africa reported that a senior South Sudanese Catholic priest, Father Maurino, and two expatriate missionaries had been deported on 12 April. The two missionaries, one from France and the other from Egypt, work with children in Khartoum. According to Father Maurino, no reason was given for the deportations. He added that Christians were in trouble in Sudan as the Government were seeking to Islamise the country and eliminate the Christian presence. That makes the humanitarian crisis even greater.
	In a published briefing, Christian Solidarity Worldwide has stated that since December it
	“has noted an increase in arrests, detentions and deportations of Christians and of those suspected of having links to them, particularly in Khartoum and Omdurman, Sudan’s largest cities. There has also been a systematic targeting of members of African ethnic groups, particularly the Nuba, lending apparent credence to the notion of the resurgence of an official agenda of Islamisation and Arabisation…The campaign of repression continued into 2013, with foreign Christians being arrested and deported at short notice, and those from Sudan facing arrest, detention and questioning
	by the security services, as well as the confiscation of property such as mobile phones, identity cards and laptops. In addition to the arrests and deportations, local reports cite a media campaign warning against ‘Christianisation’.”
	Those cases have been backed up not only by Christian Solidarity but by Release International, Open Doors and many other missionary organisations and Churches.
	William Stark, an Africa specialist for International Christian Concern, told WorldNetDaily that President Bashir had attempted to paint the rebels as Christian troublemakers. Let us put it clearly on record that that they are not. How dare Bashir blame those with Christian beliefs for what is taking place? His Government have been fighting insurgents, whom he has labelled “Christian troublemakers”. Open Doors spokesman Jerry Dykstra has said that, despite the flimsy connection with Christianity, the Sudanese Government are calling for a war against those who do not believe in Islam or in jihad, and turning the teeth of their attacks on Christians.
	I ask the Department for International Development or the Foreign Office to intervene and ascertain the intentions of Bashir and his Government. As things stand, Christian organisations representing missionaries and Churches are reporting that Churches have been closed and that foreign workers accused of proselytising have been expelled. Are the Government aware of this? What is being done to help those in that situation? To put it simply, there can be no peace and development in Sudan until there is an end to persecution. I ask the Minister to respond to these points and also to the points that have been made on humanitarian aid, health, education, roads and jobs, and on the humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Sudan and South Sudan.

Martin Horwood: I join others in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for securing this debate, and to the extraordinary resilience of the people of Sudan and South Sudan, who have undergone what, for most of us, are unimaginable levels of suffering over the years. I also want to pay tribute to the international members of the non-governmental organisations, including the many British aid workers involved, and to their local partners. My former parliamentary researcher, Anna Harvey, was working in Sudan before she came to work for me in this place. She spoke of a beautiful country and of lovely, welcoming people, but the area in which she worked was engulfed in violence some years later.
	What has happened to those beautiful countries is a great tragedy. We are talking about 500,000 people having died in Darfur province alone, and 2.5 million people still being dependent on food aid there. The hon. Member for Foyle was right to point out that the aid agencies pleaded with us for years not to ignore the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, but the international community was collectively very late in acting in a concerted way. He was also right to say that we must not let Darfur, Sudan and South Sudan slip off the political agenda again.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) pointed out the contrast between the two Sudanese countries and the rest of Africa, parts of which are now seeing phenomenal economic, political and democratic progress. Sudan and South Sudan are noticeably divergent in their failure to achieve development objectives or to
	make progress on human rights and democracy. People often say that war is development in reverse, and that is true. It is the continuing conflicts besetting those two countries that are responsible for this state of affairs.
	I do not suppose many people thought that independence in 2011 would provide a magical cure to those conflicts, but many were more hopeful that some of the issues might be resolved after the Addis Ababa deal in 2012. However, we still have the unresolved issue of the border around Abyei, where the continuing lack of a referendum is inciting violence and encouraging attempts to displace people. There are also continued interruptions to oil supplies and a lack of oil flow, both of which are damaging the prosperity in the north and the south—and both sides are clearly supporting military rebels, in breach of the Addis Ababa agreement.

Keith Vaz: Another problem is that of regional terrorism, whereby support is sometimes given by, for example, groups in Yemen to groups in Sudan that want to undermine what is happening there. A lot of evidence suggests that there are dealings between the two groups of terrorists, who seek to undermine both countries.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge and I am sure he is right. One of the risks that we have seen time and again in the middle east and north Africa region is that instability and violence invite in even less desirable elements—if that is possible to imagine—who want to destabilise further the situation in their own interests.
	I am happy to pay tribute to the British Government for being fully aware of the issues. In January, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development visited projects funded by the Department for International Development in Sudan, some of which address basic human rights. I gather that the water programme supported by DFID—this was probably the case under the previous Government, too—has now helped to provide access to clean drinking water for 800,000 people. I say to those who question whether it is right to spend 0.7% of our national income on international development that it is difficult to imagine money being spent more cost-effectively to provide such a huge number of people with such a basic thing as clean drinking water.
	Another of the DFID projects that my hon. Friend visited promotes access to justice. This debate needs to address human rights and the rule of law, and many hon. Members have done so.
	The Government’s most recent “Human Rights and Democracy” report discusses, as it has done for many years, Sudan, where human rights and democracy are, if anything, deteriorating. Political parties do exist, but there are frequent instances of harassment and imprisonment. Elections have taken place, but they are deeply flawed. Human rights defenders are detained and torture takes place. Other hon. Members have discussed instances of war crimes and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the persecution of Christians. Above all, there is continuing violence in Darfur, where hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. It is sometimes difficult to escape the conclusion that the Bashir Government are almost using violence and interference in the oil supply for their own political ends in destabilising things and preventing democratic progress.
	As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) has said, the most recent report states that an Ethiopian peacekeeper who was part of the United Nations peacekeeping force was killed and others injured in a shelling incident. It is an even more worrying development if UN troops are not safe from artillery fire. The situation is deteriorating and I would be interested to hear the Minister say what has happened as a result of that incident.
	The hon. Member for Foyle slightly criticised the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur and the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei. Although they may not be doing a perfect job, we have to acknowledge the courage of the UN peacekeepers and the difficult situation in which they have been placed.
	It is difficult for us to influence the Government of Sudan directly, but there are countries with whom they are friendly. China plays a significant role and has traditionally been identified as a friend and economic partner of Sudan. What pressure could we put on China? It would be difficult to ask the Chinese to address human rights issues in Sudan when they are no angels themselves in that respect, but they could at the very least stress the economic importance of maintaining the oil flows and the need to achieve stability in order to allow prosperity to develop. I would have thought that the Chinese would see the benefit in doing that. Will the Minister address the possibility of discussions with China about the situation in north Sudan?
	I think that many of us shared in the good will towards South Sudan on its independence. It is very sad to see its security forces also implicated in rape, torture and extrajudicial killing. The Government of South Sudan face a difficult situation, particularly given the crisis in oil revenues. If we think that we have difficulties with cuts, we should consider the idea of losing half our GDP. That would cause a complete financial crisis that any Government would struggle to cope with, let alone one in such a fragile and developing situation. The Government of South Sudan also face multiple instances of violent instability across the country. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) spoke well about the additional problem of forced displacements from the north.
	We must try to understand the almost unimaginable problems faced by the Government of South Sudan. At the same time, they must receive the message loud and clear from the British Government that the good will that they had on independence will evaporate quite quickly if they do not try to address the human rights issues. If the abuses continue and if a culture of impunity is allowed to develop in South Sudan, as it clearly did in the north, that will be a worrying development.
	It is to the credit of the South Sudanese Government that the terrible abuses in Jonglei state were followed by the arrest and charging of members of the state security forces who were involved. I would be interested to hear the latest news on that, but I have not heard of any prosecutions. It involved only a small number of people, so it would be good to hear whether progress is being made. However, there are also cases such as that of Deng Athuai Mawiir—excuse my pronunciation—the anti-corruption activist who was arrested. There is also the continuation of the death penalty. Even if we count only the official executions, there have been eight since independence.
	Other Members have talked about the position of women. The south does have quite a good record. Some 26% of National Legislative Assembly seats are held by women and 12% of heads of Ministries, Departments and agencies are women. However, the overall position of women is not good and violence against women is widespread. It is part of the Government’s strategy to counter that.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s stated priorities are to support UN peacekeeping, to support the African Union high-level implementation panel, to give financial and technical support to UN agencies and others, and to support capacity building in institutions in the south. Those seem to be exactly the right priorities. That is the right strategy in an intensely difficult situation. The only thing that we can ask in this Chamber and in this debate is that, if it is humanly possible, we raise our game even further and encourage our international partners to do likewise. If we can do that, we might thereby offer a positive message and hope to the people of this pretty unhappy region.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I, too, preface my remarks by congratulating the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on the way in which they introduced the debate? Their contributions were powerful and set out clearly the gravity of the situation and the seriousness of the problems.
	It is right to celebrate the fact that South Sudan is the youngest country in the world, but it has had a troubled birth. There is an imperative on us, as a nation that cares, to demonstrate that we care through how we address the situation. This House is slowly but surely being sucked into a debate about and probably an action in another part of the world—Syria. I believe that this Government and this Parliament ought to have, if not more, then certainly equal concern about South Sudan and Sudan.
	Since 2010-11, there has been utter silence about the situation in Sudan. That is a worrying trend, because the level of fighting has continued to rise and the humanitarian situation is again deteriorating. That conflict is being waged, but it is being met by total silence. That silence is a condemnation not of this House, but of the international community, who should be speaking out powerfully about the situation. It is a tribute to this House and to the Backbench Business Committee that this matter is the subject of debate today. This year alone, 300,000 people have been displaced in Sudan—another indictment of what is actually happening. If it were happening anywhere else, including parts of the middle east, it would be a matter for urgent questions and all sorts of other activities. I have some questions for the Minister, who I know will do his best to answer them, and I will reiterate some points that have been briefly touched on by other Members, as it is important to address them.
	The Government of Sudan continue indiscriminately to target civilians with aerial bombardments. Such attacks are a clear violation of the UN Security Council’s resolution 1591, dated March 2005, which demands an end to such violence. What is the UN is going to do
	about resolution 1591? Will it insist that action is taken to protect citizens? Hon. Members have mentioned the atrocious attacks on civilians in the village of Jebel Marra, where there are already 500 orphans. The murder of a woman there on 16 June this year meant that two more children have been left without a mother. The Government of Sudan continue to obstruct aid agencies from operating freely within the region, and many of those agencies are struggling to cope with the 1.4 million people living in displaced persons camps with very little amenity—indeed, in many instances, with nothing. New arrivals are arriving practically every day to be faced with the opportunity to live under a tarpaulin shelter and scratch a living from the land.
	That has been going on not for months or years but for more than a decade, which again is an indictment. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was right to say that the UN is doing quite a lot—indeed, I think he said it is doing a good job—but if it has been paid $765 million by this Government and country since 2007, we would expect it to do a good job. The United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur budget has cost an estimated $9.3 billion since 2007; one would have expected the problem to have been solved a long time ago. We are looking at a waste of resources, and I ask the Government to conduct an immediate inquiry into that expenditure to try to try to paint a picture of where the money is going, so that we can understand how it is being spent. For the life of me, I cannot understand how $9 billion has left a country in such an intolerable mess.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point and it is right to question the cost of UN operations. Does he accept, however, that in some of these examples it is more important to try to build capacity and to offer training and support to improve the effectiveness of UN forces, rather than berate them about the amount of money we have agreed to spend on them?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I absolutely agree, and believe me, I am not berating. If the hon. Gentleman saw me berating, he would understand what berating actually means. I am simply asking questions, because the amount of money being spent is obscene for the amount of result. That is a fair point that is not that critical of the UN, and I think we have the right to make it.
	The Government have a role to support peace, as the motion rightly states. In any country that has emerged from conflict—I speak with some personal experience—when conflict ends, stability starts to take over, and with that flows commercial activity. Capitalism is often accused of being cowardly, but if there is stability, capital and activity will start to flow. The Government must explain how they intend to encourage UK business activity to flow into that country when, as I hope it will, stability slowly but surely starts to make a foundation. What support will they give to British businesses that seek to invest and help develop the structure of that country?
	It is also important to ask the Government what security support our nation can give to South Sudan, so that it can protect its people, borders and integrity, and so that we can continue to celebrate the birth of that new nation. What other assistance can our Government give? Can we encourage the UN to give money for the
	protection of the border, so that oil resources can be properly utilised and so that oil can properly flow, to allow the development of infrastructure and expenditure on South Sudan’s people?
	I reiterate that the awful activities that in many instances are generated in Sudan against its neighbour are done not in the name of the ordinary people of Sudan, but in the name of a wrong regime. The regime must be challenged, but we must not penalise the ordinary people of Sudan because of it. As the Minister well knows, that is an incredibly difficult balance to achieve, but it is important that we spell out that principle loud and clear.

Ian Lucas: I thank the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for initiating the debate. He has done a great service in bringing the subject of Sudan and South Sudan to the House two years after it was last discussed in detail. I commend all contributors to the debate. They spoke with passion, eloquence and authority on the dreadful situation that prevails in Sudan.
	I pay tribute to the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan. All-party groups have, sadly, had a bit of a bad press of late, but this debate is a strong and powerful answer to those who criticise them. We have heard the personal testimony of those who have been to Sudan and South Sudan; they have been able to inform the debate with their personal recollections, which makes all hon. Members do our jobs better. So well done to the all-party group and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
	The hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) spoke with great insight, authority and passion about the situation on the ground, the difficulties people face, and how the hopes we had when South Sudan separated have unfortunately not been realised. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) highlighted an important aspect of the debate, namely that there are UN resolutions in place. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was right to question where the money has gone, because it is important that we hold all institutions to account, including the Government—that is the job of all hon. Members—the UN and those bodies that are established by it. If the job is not being done, it is our obligation to hold those institutions to account, and I am sure the Minister will do so.
	The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) spoke of her personal experience of Sudan as a member of the International Development Committee, and particularly of women’s issues, the refugee camps and the inadequacies of the sanitation systems, which we need to improve. An important part of any new state is governance. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke of the importance of religious freedom. The suppression of Christianity is not acceptable anywhere, including Sudan. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) spoke with his usual eloquence. He brought to the Chamber the experience of colleagues from his office who have worked in Sudan, and of the difficult situation that prevails.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim spoke with great authority and presented the dilemma of what an international policy can achieve. The previous Government pursued an international policy, which the coalition Government continued with real commitment. Frankly,
	it is not working. It is now more than 10 years since the Sudanese Government launched military action against armed groups in Darfur, leading to the deaths of more than 300,000 Darfuris and the displacement of 3 million people. We heard from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that the problems in Sudan go back even further than that. The various examples cited in the debate show that the fundamental causes of the conflict remain. One can only feel for the people of Sudan and we must stand with them in sympathy and solidarity. The central fact is this: the appalling crisis that happened before is happening again. I listened to all the contributions to the debate, and I am sure the Minister did too. We need to work collectively to make progress and support the Government in holding international institutions to account.
	We heard about the work carried out by NGOs and charitable organisations. They have provided us with examples of the difficulties on the ground and make a profound contribution to the day-to-day lives of individuals who have to live in a very difficult situation. Without their support, that situation would be worse. The security situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate. The Government of Sudan appear to continue to target civilians. Violence, insecurity and civilian displacement have increased since 2010, and rape and sexual violence continues to be used as a weapon of war. UN Security Council resolutions continue to be flouted.
	International and media attention focuses on South Kordofan and Blue Nile, where the conflict between the Sudanese Government and Sudan People’s Liberation Army continues. There is a danger that the situation in Blue Nile and South Kordofan will turn into a longstanding conflict like that in Darfur. That must be averted at all costs. Recent figures from the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs state that, just since January, more than 300,000 people have been displaced by inter-tribal fighting or conflict between armed movements in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. According to figures from the Government’s Humanitarian Aid Commission for government-controlled areas and from the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Agency for SPLM-N areas in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, more than 1 million people remain displaced or are severely affected by fighting. There are more displaced people this year so far than there were in the whole of last year. The situation is truly desperate, and addressing the conflict in these two areas is fundamental to finding a lasting peace between Sudan and South Sudan.
	I was struck that Sudan was not mentioned once in Foreign Office questions today. That is why we need to thank the hon. Member for Foyle. There are so many other pressing issues at the moment, but the scale and breadth of the challenge in Sudan is profound. We ask the Government to press the UN Security Council to support and protect people across Sudan, particularly in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile state. The UK must continue to press the Sudanese Government and rebel movements to work towards peace. We cannot allow history to repeat itself. Recently, the UN’s Valerie Amos said:
	“We cannot let Darfur slip off the radar of the international community”.
	Unfortunately, that appears to have happened. In Blue Nile state—an area held by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army—there have been multiple scorched earth offensives.
	The humanitarian situation for those remaining there is dire, with civilians unable to tend their crops for fear of being bombed and food supplies scarce. The Sudanese Government continue to block humanitarian relief to civilians in rebel-held areas. We must ensure that access is given to UNAMID, humanitarian organisations and NGOs.
	We hope that recent signs of co-operation and progress between the Sudanese and South Sudanese Governments continue. If it has been happening, it is probably due to international pressure, including from the UK and US Governments. We need to keep the pressure on. What are the Government doing to engage with the international community and to put pressure the Sudanese Government and rebels to cease fighting? What recent engagements has the Minister had with international counterparts to help improve the prospects of a solution to the conflict in Sudan? Were Sudan and South Sudan an item for discussion at the G8 summit, and what steps were taken at the summit to address these issues? What discussions has the Minister had with the African Union high-level implementation panel to try to agree a transition to peace in Blue Nile and South Kordofan states? Will he update the House on progress with Qatar on the implementation of the 2011 Doha document for peace in Darfur?
	This has been a harrowing debate. We have heard from all Members about the dreadful state of affairs that continues in Sudan and South Sudan. This is an issue on which the House needs to come together and work with the Government and international institutions to try to remedy the international community’s failure in Sudan and South Sudan over the past decade. It is important that we work together, and I am certain that the Minister will do his utmost to take the work forward in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Mark Simmonds: I begin by congratulating all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate. Their knowledge was exemplified by and built on the visits that people have clearly made to this important and challenging part of Africa. I agree with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on the importance of the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan and its significant contribution to highlighting the importance of this issue in the House. He was right to mention that this subject was not raised in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions this morning, but to be fair to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), he certainly managed to raise it in the previous FCO questions, and I have no doubt that he and other hon. Members will do so again.
	I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle not only on securing this debate but on the detailed and passionate way in which he introduced the topic, highlighting the significant problems that exist. He was absolutely right to raise the challenges that exist, particularly the humanitarian crisis. If I have time later, I will say a little more about what we and the Department for International Development are doing about that. I join him and other hon. Members in putting on the record our recognition of the bravery
	and commitment of many non-governmental organisations in the work they do on the ground, albeit without being specific, as they request. He also raised the significant role of UNAMID, which is a joint UN-African Union force. It also needs to be put on record that Robin Gwynn, who is a senior FCO official and the United Kingdom’s special envoy to Sudan, is in Darfur today to discuss exactly how to reinvigorate the peace process and how we can support UNAMID and give it a greater focus.
	The hon. Gentleman was also right to highlight the terrible suffering in Blue Nile state and South Kordofan—suffering that is sadly stretching and expanding into North Kordofan—and the importance of trying to ensure that the international community gets humanitarian access into those parts of Sudan when it is safe to do so. I can give the hon. Member for Wrexham an assurance that we are co-operating and discussing with multilateral organisations such as the United Nations and the African Union, as well as through the troika—the United States, Norway and the United Kingdom, which work together closely on these issues—and with other organisations, such as the Arab League, which also has an important role to play.
	The hon. Member for Foyle was absolutely right to highlight the current deterioration of the situation in Darfur and the attacks on UNAMID, which have continued. We have also seen tribal clashes over land, which means that this is not a simple matter of the South Sudanese forces attacking those tribal groups. Things are much more complicated than that, but that does not take away from the suffering that is occurring. More than 300,000 people have been displaced this year—more than in the last two years—and 1.4 million internally displaced people are already in camps in Darfur. We are doing what we can to alleviate the human suffering and the humanitarian situation, and we certainly press the Government of Sudan very strongly to honour their commitment under the Doha peace agreement and allow unhindered humanitarian access.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about the risk that aid for Darfur will be used by the Government. I can give him an assurance that UK assistance in Darfur is delivered through UN agencies and NGOs and is carefully targeted specifically to benefit ordinary Darfuris, not Government institutions. Indeed, after the Doha conference there were significant and detailed strategic talks to ensure that all donor assistance is targeted in that way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) made an informed and knowledgeable speech. He was absolutely right to say how highly regarded the United Kingdom still is in Sudan and to talk about the significant educational links that exist. He also raised the importance of the humanitarian challenges, quite rightly highlighting the excellent work of the NGOs. If I may build on the sad point he made about the Ethiopian peacekeeper who was killed, we utterly condemn the attack. Indeed, last night I had the sad task of writing to the Ethiopian Foreign Minister to express our condolences at the loss of a young female Ethiopian peacekeeper.
	My hon. Friend was also right to highlight the importance of oil to both economies and to acknowledge and congratulate those officials in the Foreign Office and DFID who work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering and do what they can to find lasting solutions to the
	problems that have dogged Sudan and South Sudan for far too many years. I can confirm to him that their focus on DFID, in addition to alleviating humanitarian suffering, is about building accountable, capable and responsive government, public financial management through the anti-corruption commission and supporting civil society.

Jim Shannon: On the issue of accountable management, is the Minister aware of any worker projects relating to land management or agricultural projects, perhaps to enable people to try to feed themselves? Is there a way for that to happen?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful for that intervention. The Department for International Development does that sort of project, and the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of putting in place sustainable economic policies to give people a stake in the community and to be able to provide for themselves and their families in a sustainable way. Ultimately, that is the only way we are going to break the cycle of conflict.
	Another key point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester was the prevention of humanitarian access in Jonglei. I can give him an assurance that we consistently raise our concerns with the Minister for humanitarian affairs and did so only yesterday. Additional officials in the FCO and DFID Sudan unit are today meeting the South Sudanese foreign affairs ministry to make that point very forcefully again.
	We then heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), who was absolutely right to reiterate and highlight the powerful point about the suffering of refugees. He was right to highlight, too, weak civil governance and food shortages. He made a very important point about the effectiveness of UNAMID. I share his concerns and those of his right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) about the performance of UNAMID in respect of its core mandate to protect civilians. I can give him an assurance that the UK is working with the UN and the troop-contributing countries to improve the performance of troops and that we regularly raise with the Government of Sudan the restrictions placed on the mission by the Sudanese authorities, which are completely unacceptable. Officials are in regular touch with Mr Chambas, the new head of UNAMID, about more effective management of the mission.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) was absolutely right to highlight the lack of infrastructure in South Sudan, and the importance of roads for economic development and economic growth. She further emphasised the point that other hon. Members made about the importance of oil revenues and keeping the oil flowing to build up infrastructure and capacity. She also highlighted, with great articulation, the practical problems of flooding, lack of jobs and language difficulties, not to mention the significant economic challenges. We share those concerns about the situation of those of southern origin, who have been required to leave Sudan following the independence of South Sudan. DFID has provided financial support specifically to respond to the humanitarian and resettlement needs of the returnees.
	Let me deal now with the important contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who focused his remarks on problems with religious freedom and the persecution of Christians. We are very concerned
	about the increase in the number of reports in recent months of intimidation and threats to Christians and to church premises—from other groups and, significantly, from parts of the Sudanese security services—as well as of the deportations of individual Christians of foreign origin. Our officials in Khartoum have, together with the EU, met members of the Sudanese Government to raise our significant concerns. In particular, we have urged them to investigate the attack on Christian individuals and properties. It is also worth emphasising that the UK embassy is providing assistance in a consular capacity to foreign Christians who have been affected by these problems.
	Briefly, if I may, I would like to put on record even though I am a Minister in the Foreign Office, some of the very significant and important work being done by the Department for International Development, both in Sudan and South Sudan. The work focuses on responding to the underlying causes of conflict and its impact on the poorest and most vulnerable in Sudan—displaced people, particularly girls and women, the urban poor and the disadvantaged young. DFID will work to tackle the impact of unequal allocation of finance and unequal access to basic services.
	Some of the figures are quite extraordinary, so let me quickly trot some of them out. About 800,000 people have been given access to clean drinking water; 20,000 young people have been helped to obtain education and training; 80,000 people have access to financial services; 10,000 square kilometres of land have been returned to productive use—the hon. Member for Strangford alluded to that—and 250,000 women and girls have improved access to security and justice. The list goes on, and it relates only to northern Sudan. In the southern part, our aid has enabled 2 million children to go through primary school, provided 750,000 people with malaria prevention and treatment, provided food security for 250,000 people, and given 470,000 people access to clean water and sanitation. Significant outcomes have been achieved, thanks to UK taxpayers’ money.
	As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) made a very articulate speech. One of the key issues that he rightly raised was the influence that China can have in encouraging better behaviour on the part of the Sudanese Government, and we agree that it can play an important role in encouraging the Governments of Sudan and South Sudan to resolve their problems and build stability. We have regular discussions with China about Sudan in Beijing and at the Security Council in New York, as well as through our respective embassies in the two countries. I welcome China’s clear statement last week that Sudan should not shut down oil production, but should implement all agreements on their merits.
	It was, perhaps, fair for the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) to suggest that there had been “silence” in the House, but I assure him that there has not been silence in Government Departments, in the United Nations, or elsewhere in international multilateral organisations in regard to the significant challenges faced by both countries. He rightly mentioned the importance of business, and I can give him a categorical assurance that DFID is working to improve the business environment in northern Sudan. He may be interested to learn that in the autumn an international investment conference will take place in Juba, in South Sudan, with
	the aim of stimulating inward investment and sustainable job creation in the area. He also rightly referred to the tension and the difficult balance that sometimes exists between the regime in northern Sudan and the wish to support the long-suffering people.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the cost-effectiveness of the United Nations missions. I was in New York 20 days ago, discussing that very issue with key UN officials. We have supported a UN review of the military and the civilian elements of the mission over the past year. That has led to some reductions in the size of the mission, intended to improve the focus on its core mandate, and we will continue to work with the relevant UN department to improve the mission’s performance on the ground. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of security support for South Sudan, and I can tell him that we are working with the international community to assist the reform of security services there. The cross-departmental conflict pool is funding a major project to improve the leadership and accountability of the southern Sudanese armed forces.
	A major challenge clearly faces the two countries in the context of their bilateral relationships and their relationships with the regional and broader international communities. There is a huge amount of work to be done before Sudan and South Sudan can finally put this regrettable chapter of their history behind them. I urge the two Governments, with the support of the international community, to focus on ensuring that any influence that they have over armed groups in each other’s territories is used to positive rather than negative effect. We must all co-operate, co-ordinate and provide assistance to ensure that the nine-point plan that was detailed at the United Nations General Assembly last September is implemented in full as quickly as possible, to the benefit of people living in both countries.

Mark Durkan: I thank all Members for their passionate contributions to the debate. Alas, although many important issues were raised, none of what we said did justice to the scale and nature of the problems faced by the people of Sudan and South Sudan, or bore adequate witness to the quality of the work and commitment of so many non-governmental organisations and others.
	The issues raised have been addressed by both the Minister and the shadow Minister, and I appreciate the fact that the Minister has responded to Members’ questions, including those passed on to us by others, as we engaged in the subject through the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan and other channels.
	Many useful questions were asked about UNAMID and the United Nations, and an important message was sent about the competence and value of their involvement. We cannot just casually go with yet another international agency, perhaps with a big money spend; we are talking about what is meant to be a serious international intervention in a tragic situation, and it does not seem to be delivering what it should. That may in part be because we have not held it to account or followed through on the financial commitment or on the parliamentary scrutiny to the extent that we have elsewhere. Perhaps we need to shake up our own priorities.
	In my opening remarks, I did not have time to acknowledge last year’s very good report on South Sudan from the International Development Committee, so I am glad that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) stressed its importance. She reflected in a poignant and personal way the practical implications for, and experiences of, the people in South Sudan. That report bears more reading and reflection. Perhaps another of the procedural tweaks or adjustments that we need to make is to ensure that when there is a quality report by a Committee, we give it time in the House. Members should not be left to busk a year later at the Backbench Business Committee in order to secure a debate such as this one.
	I thank all the Members who contributed today. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) helped secure the debate and highlighted a number of points. He praised the thinking behind the South Sudan Health Action and Research Project, or SHARP. There are questions to be asked about that project, but I do not think any of us question the motive behind it. How it translates into practice and its budgetary resource commitment and long-term backing are what is important.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised points that were addressed by the Minister and the shadow Minister, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly cautioned us about the need to ensure that whatever criticisms we make of UNAMID, we do not say or do anything that negates the bravery of those serving in that difficult situation.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made some very important points, and he was not in “berater” mode. He is certainly never in traitor mode, but the fact that he was not in “berater” mode was a novelty. He asked about UN resolution 1591; I am just glad it was not 1690.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), rightly highlighted the importance of many issues, and put salient questions to the Minister, which he, in turn, addressed well. I was also grateful for the interventions from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain)—who chairs the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan—the hon. Member for Workington (Sir Tony Cunningham) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
	A number of Members talked about the position of women and children in both countries. It is a salient statistic that a girl in South Sudan is three times more likely to die in childbirth than to complete primary education. South Sudan has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the world. That is why we need to be thinking about these countries and paying attention to last year’s Select Committee report. We also need to be addressing the question rightly asked by people such as the hon. Member for Wrexham: if Sudan and South Sudan are not being discussed at the G8 but other countries suffering conflict are, what is the difference? We can explain in all sorts of strategic and regional ways what the difference is, but we need to make sure that there is no difference as far as our sincerity, our motive and the level of our humanitarian commitment are concerned.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the Government’s role in supporting peace and development in Sudan and South Sudan.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION (COMMITTEES)

Ordered,
	That the Motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees).—(Mr Syms.)

Aircraft Noise Pollution (Holywell)

David Hanson: I rise to table a petition on behalf of Sue Johnson and residents of Holywell, Flintshire. North Wales is a great manufacturing area for aircraft production and we benefit from tourism, but I hope that the petition can raise issues so that they can be looked at by the authorities, in order to help tackle this aircraft noise.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Pen Y Maes Road, Holywell, Flintshire,
	Declares that the petitioners are opposed to noise pollution from low flying commercial jet planes, especially Easyjet, going to and from John Lennon Airport, Liverpool. John Lennon Airport changed their flight paths without consultation with any authorities in North Wales, and this has had a big impact on the environment in Holywell. Holywell has a population of over 6,000. It is the Lourdes of Wales with its Holy waters and attracts over 30,000 visitors a year. Holywell also has a large Community Hospital with elderly inpatients, and the aircraft noise can be heard from within the hospital.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons examines changing the flight paths to avoid Holywell, and so resume our peace and quiet.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001186]

EDUCATION ACT 1996 (TRAVELLING FAMILIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Richard Graham: The subject of this debate may be obscure, but what is at stake is at the heart of this Government’s mission to build community cohesion, to inspire educational achievement and to encourage strong families. My goal this evening is for the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who has been generous with her time in her Department and today in this Chamber, to ensure that the consequences of any proposed changes to legislation do not unintentionally damage the fabric of life of some 24,000 people; and that the Government’s drive to improve exam results is not at the cost of close-knit, resilient and independent families in communities where divorce and antisocial behaviour are conspicuously rare.
	Let me explain my case in more detail. The origins of section 444(6) of the Education Act 1996 can be traced to section 39(3) of the Education Act 1944—the Butler Act—that remarkable creation of the second world war. So any proposed change to that section would be a change to the Butler Act provision which has endured for 79 years. The reason for such a change may come from the consultation that the Government launched last November—“Improving educational outcomes for children of travelling families”—on whether to repeal the current legislation that protects travelling parents from being found guilty of school attendance offences in certain circumstances.
	Those circumstances are where parents are
	“engaged in a trade or business of such a nature as to require”—
	them—
	“to travel from place to place”
	and where
	“the child has attended…as a registered pupil as regularly as the nature of that trade or business permits”.

Marcus Jones: On this review, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the fundamental issues is that the report produced by the Government does not make a proper distinction between Gypsies, other Travellers and showpeople? The issues that showpeople have, which I am sure he is coming on to deal with, are fundamentally different on this matter.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has highlighted precisely the point I was coming on to, which is that the consultation document makes specific reference only to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children—indeed, they are defined more precisely as children of Irish Traveller heritage, and the acronym is GRT. The consultation noted that they were among the lowest achieving groups at every key stage of education.
	My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point by noticing that the showpeople—the travelling showmen—are a specific group that would be inadvertently affected by the repeal of the legislation, which, we believe, does not apply to them.

Michael Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a classic case of there being an exception to every rule? Is his argument that such an exception should apply in the instant case?

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One size does not always fit all, as he and I know from the different size of suits that we are wearing. Exactly the same is true for the showman community in the case of this section of the Education Act.
	The specifics of the showmen are worth noting. They are not an ethnic group as the Romany Gypsies or, arguably, the Irish Travellers are, but a cultural one, united by the fairground industry. They are a community that put on in excess of 200 fairs weekly, many held in winter, too, both here and abroad. They can trace their ancestry back to charters and privileges granted as early as a fair held near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister in King’s Lynn in 1204. Adjacent to her constituency, the Norfolk fair, held every February since Tudor times, marks the opening of the travelling season. The community will mostly spend the next eight months on the road.
	The showmen have one winter base and the whole family is typically on the road for the rest of the year. It is a travelling, traditional family business where the role of women is just as important as that of men. David Wallis, the president of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, said earlier this year:
	“Women…are the backbone of the industry, working in every area from accounting to driving, as well as fulfilling traditional roles as housekeepers and mothers.”
	His point was that splitting the family unit up would be unthinkable. Educating the children on the road means that studies can be fitted around the demands of the businesses and wives can continue to work alongside their husbands.
	The showmen are largely represented by the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, a trade body that has been in existence since 1889 and that is responsible for some 98% of the travelling showmen of Great Britain, representing about 22,000 individuals. There are also three other trade associations, the Amusement Catering Equipment Society, which represents 120 families, the Association of Independent Showmen, which represents 500 families, and the Society of Independent Roundabout Proprietors, which represents 140 families. They would all be equally affected by any change to section 444(6).
	The Minister and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be disappointed if I failed to mention the Gloucester connection to the case I am making this evening. Showmen have been based on and around Alney island by the ancient Westgate crossing of the River Severn, an entrance to our city, for more than 100 years. For example, they participated in a great fair held for Edward VII on Alney island in conditions of a downpour almost as heavy as the one that heralded the great flood of 2007. They contribute to the diversity and unique heritage of a great British city and a constituency that has been represented in this House for more than 700 years. They contribute greatly to their nearest school, Kingsholm primary school, whose deputy head has written to me as follows:
	“Over the years we have schooled many of the children from”
	Alney island
	“and other sites that house different traveller groups in the Gloucester area…we ask…that our families communicate with us about their travel plans so that we can prepare work packs for the children to take with them. We also ask that our families keep in touch during their travels…so we can facilitate a smooth integration back into school…Kingsholm C of E Primary School is enriched by the varied ethnicity and cultures of our families. Each and everyone is valued and celebrated…A significant majority of our”
	showmen
	“families hold their children’s education in high regard; both their academic and cultural education. In the main the children’s attendance when they are in Gloucester is exemplary and therefore we can maximise the impact of interventions in order to address any gaps the children may have due to their travelling.”
	The Minister will be particularly interested to hear that last week, for the first time in its history, Kingsholm primary school was awarded “outstanding” status by Ofsted. This is significant because it is compelling evidence that the travelling showpeople are no hindrance to—indeed, contribute to—outstanding educational achievement.

Marcus Jones: In addition to the excellent work that schools do with children of showground people, does my hon. Friend agree that with modern technology and the will of the showground people to get their children to learn and to achieve, there is a way in which, when they are away from their base school, showground people can make sure that their children are well educated?

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is right. He understands his own showmen community in Nuneaton so well. What has changed is the way in which remote education can take place successfully. Currently, children with travelling parents are registered with one school in the UK and they keep their place when on the move. The school sets work, which is completed on the road and sent back via a laptop with a mobile internet connection, and the children rejoin the school on their return. This is considered effective and efficient by both the parents and the schools involved. Over recent years there has been a consistent rise in the number of pupils taking GCSEs within the showmen community. These are the children who have benefited most from vast improvements made to distance learning with the help of technology, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

Jim Shannon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those children are meeting the high educational standards that children in Gloucester are meeting? Is that what he is trying to achieve for all the families involved?

Richard Graham: It is fair to say that the educational achievements of all communities vary from place to place. Showmen are a community spread across the whole of the United Kingdom in 10 different regions. I do not have precise statistics for their educational achievements. It is one of the issues that I will mention before finishing my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to, but he is right to raise the question.
	Over the past few months I have created an online petition which has attracted almost 4,000 signatures, all opposing a repeal of section 444(6), and innumerable, often moving e-mails from around the country. I hope
	the Minister will not mind if I quote briefly from a handful of them. This is from James Breeze:
	“Being a showman was a massive complement to my formal education. Can you think of a more stimulating environment for a child to live in? How things work? The value of service? The value of money? Social interactions? The list is endless.”
	He goes on to talk about his nine GCSEs at A to C level, four A-levels, a 2:1 degree from Durham university and postgraduate diploma from Leeds Metropolitan university. He is now working in a significant role in a multinational company, managing a large team. He comments:
	“This reinforces my view that a showman’s life combined with education as it is now gives the best life skills.”
	In similar vein, an e-mail from Morgan Robinson, who comments:
	“I come from a travelling showman background and as such have had to spend many weeks away from school in the summer months…I never fell behind, and in some circumstances, I was actually ahead by the time I got back to school!”
	He lists his A-levels and GCSEs, and his chemistry degree course at the university of Warwick. He says:
	“My hopes for after my degree is to get a job as an intellectual property lawyer”.
	There are several such e-mails. I shall finish them with e-mails from two sisters based in Gloucester, Zoe and Olivia Sheldon. Zoe wrote:
	“As a young showperson I have relied on this Act”—
	section 444(6)—
	“all of my school life. From the age of 4 my parents removed me from my base school…to travel with the fair for 6 months of the year.”
	She continues:
	“I was successful in gaining a place at Ribston Hall Grammar School for girls at the age of 11 and went on to achieve 11 GCSEs A* to C grades. My sister Olivia, also a student at Ribston, is now studying with the open university to achieve an English degree.”
	Zoe finishes:
	“The education of young showpeople is reliant on this Act and its abolition would result in the needless break-up of showmen families and cause a loss in the traditional showmen culture as it would force showmen children to be brought up outside of the showman way of life.”
	Zoe’s older sister Olivia wrote:
	“my sister and I are not isolated cases. I have several cousins and friends who completed/are undertaking University Degrees after having a similar educational background to mine. Among the Showman Community we are hearing more and more news of great educational achievements…Travelling Funfares can move vast distances to get to their next event and are sometimes only in a town for a couple of days, making the suggestion of registering at a different school at each location inconceivable and even detrimental to the education of Showpeople…such an education was imposed on some elder relatives of mine who found it ‘confusing’ as different schools were doing different subjects at different times. The end result was a poor education.”
	She goes on to comment about the importance of forming long-term friendships at one school; people who know showpeople’s children when they come back from their travelling.
	I met one or two of their older relations on Alney island, who described to me what it was like moving from school to school, in one case being forced to sit in the corner with a book while everyone else was learning. I cannot believe that that is what the Minister would wish to see among our children today.
	I am conscious that time is moving on and we all wish to hear from the Minister. I also had a moving letter from Charlotte Barltrop, who worked in a circus for 10 years before getting a degree in theatre and professional practice at the university of Coventry. She now runs her own business teaching circus skills. She wrote:
	“All my achievements wouldn’t have been possible if…I was not educated as a child and…was not able to travel whilst gaining this early education. The skills I learned as a child, both in and out of the classroom, are what has enabled me to have such an amazing career”.
	I believe that the Minister’s response to the consultation will be published before long, but not, I hope, before she and the Minister for Schools, who shares responsibility for the response, consider carefully the case for the following constructive suggestions. First, we should make arrangements to measure the education results of different showmen groups as a separate entity from the GRT community on which the consultation has been based. Secondly, I encourage the Minister for Schools to meet me and others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), interested in the case of the showmen, and to visit Kingsholm primary school in Gloucester to see how achievement and remote learning can be combined. Thirdly, and above all, we should exempt the travelling showmen and circus communities from any repeal of section 444(6). That would be a pragmatic, practical and appropriate way to ensure that the lives of some 24,000 travelling showpeople are not unintentionally and dramatically damaged by the Minister’s admirable focus on driving up educational results.
	I am grateful to the guild, its representatives, the other associations, my own constituents, and many around the country who have committed their time to sending e-mails and messages of support and information.

David Ward: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Graham: I am sorry, but I have very little time left.
	Not least, I am grateful to Lisa Deakin Stevens, the family of Matthew Stevens and many others, supported by the Westgate councillors. They have all contributed to my speech this evening, and I look forward to a sympathetic response from my hon. Friend the Minister, in the knowledge that she cannot pre-empt her response to the consultation, but in the belief that this debate may influence her response, and that she will see that what I have raised is a good cause for a valued community.

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate on an issue of great importance that means so much to travelling families, especially showmen and circus communities, who travel for work for large parts of the year. My hon. Friend represents his constituents with aplomb, and he has done it yet again. I also place on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), and representatives of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain for their helpful contributions to the meeting that I hosted on 15 April.
	The Government’s vision is one of a highly educated society in which opportunity is more equal for children and young people, no matter what their background or family circumstances. The Department’s overall objective is to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to fulfil their educational potential. We are making changes to the national curriculum and reforming our examination system to restore public confidence. These reforms will benefit all children attending school regularly.
	We are seeking to improve school attendance. There are clear and tangible benefits for pupils who are registered at school and attend regularly. Only 37% of those who miss between 10% and 20% of school sessions manage to achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, which compares with 73% for pupils who miss less than 5% of school sessions. Our country has one of the largest attainment gaps between the highest and lowest performing students, and I believe that big gap in skills is another thing holding our country back.
	My hon. Friend made an excellent case about the good practice in his constituency. I am pleased to hear that Kingsholm primary school has just been rated as outstanding by Ofsted, which we of course want many more schools to achieve. I recognise that there are differences in performance between different parts of the travelling community. Of those pupils recorded as absent due to travelling who come from a Roma, Irish Traveller or Gypsy background, only 8.2% achieve five GCSEs at grades A* to C, which I am sure we agree is not a good performance. The figure for other parts of the travelling community is 40%, which is not as good as the UK average of 58.8%, but it is significantly better than 8.2%.
	My hon. Friend suggested that we should work together to produce more accurate results for the showman community, and in our meeting of 15 April we discussed coming up with more details, which I think would be useful. We do not believe that a child’s aspirations should be limited by their access to education, but I am sympathetic to the arguments he made for showmen and circus members today and on 15 April.
	The recent consultation on whether to remove the defence for travelling parents engaged in a trade or business has been helpful in raising some of the issues affecting the various travelling communities. I agree that the issues are different for different travelling communities. I was encouraged that the consultation received nearly 2,000 responses. I would like to thank the individuals and organisations who took the time to respond. I think it is notable that, despite having smaller numbers, the showman community provided the overwhelming majority of responses—73%.
	This is clearly a very complex issue. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be wrong to rush to make any changes before considering the consequences. He made a good point that the legislation has been in law for quite some time. We certainly do not want to make any precipitous decisions on the matter. The reason I started talking about educational attainment, however, is that that is our goal, and we need to reach it one way or another.

Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for the due consideration she is giving the matter. I ask her to consider the children of showground people who might
	suffer from conditions such as autism and find it difficult to change environments regularly. Will she therefore consider the impact that moving from school to school from week to week might have on a child with such a condition?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is certainly something we should take into account when making our final decision on the matter.
	The complexity of the issue is the reason why we consulted, but I think that we should focus not only on the legal sanction element in the current arrangements, but on how we can improve the system so that we can better meet the educational needs of mobile families and place no limit on travelling children’s ambitions or potential to succeed. Both my hon. Friends have suggested ways, including the use of technology, in which we might be better able to serve people with different lifestyles.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester confirmed what the responses to the consultation have been telling us—namely, that showmen try to avoid any interruption to their children’s education but that that has become more difficult in recent years, with many local authorities choosing not to run Traveller education services in the same way as they did previously. For some, that has meant the disappearance of peripatetic teachers who would visit fairgrounds. Local authorities should prioritise and run services in a way that is best suited to local needs.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the distance learning packs provided by schools. Many responses from schools and members of the showman community have indicated that they have good relationship with schools and that they are given access to distance learning packs. There are clearly new ways of communicating involving modern technology that could also be used. It is clear that when this works well it is to be encouraged, but this is not always the case and some people do not enjoy the benefits of such arrangements.
	I have set out our vision and expectations for all children, and I maintain that, in raising attainment for all pupils, we will drive up attainment for travelling pupils as well. I will consider the responses to the consultation, together with the Minister for Schools, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for raising this matter and for his contribution to the discussion. He has highlighted some important concerns. As a follow-up to today’s debate, I suggest that he has a discussion with officials about some of the more technical issues. I know that he has come up with various proposals, including giving exemption to members of the Showmen’s Guild. There would be issues with that, however, because not all showman proprietors are necessarily members of the guild. There would also be concerns about having exemptions for a particular group, and the loopholes that that could create.
	We need to look not only at the current proposal for legislation on attendance but at how we can better support families who are travelling. We need to ask whether there are different ways of doing this and whether we could make better use of modern technology. It would be helpful to explore those questions with the officials from the Department who are considering this matter. As I have said, I am not keen to rush to a
	precipitate judgment. We all want to raise attainment and to ensure that schools are providing a good service to the communities that they serve.
	I will also pass on to the Minister for Schools my hon. Friend’s desire to meet him and discuss the issue further. That would be a good thing, because we have been discussing attainment among the different communities, and that is my right hon. Friend’s responsibility. Comparing the attainment among Gypsies, Roma, Travellers and members of the showman community will be important in reaching the final resolution of this issue.
	I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and for bringing the delegation to the Department for Education in April. It is important that we get this right, and it is a pleasure to be able to work with hon. Members who take such a keen interest in a piece of legislation that might seem detailed but which will have an impact on quite a number of people.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.